Pistol Choices II


PDA






MM60
December 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!

I've created this poll as a clarification/new beginning to my original "Pistol Choices" thread, which I feel was somewhat vague.

POLL QUESTION: If you were only able to own one handgun, to be used for self-defense purposes in any given situation for the rest of your life, which handgun would you choose? (Imagine that you don't currently own any handguns, and that you must choose only one handgun out of every handgun in existence. This handgun will be completely free and come with whatever accessories you want.)

(I can only create 20 poll options, so please select the company that manufacture's the handgun you would choose. I'm sorry if your company is not listed.)

Please feel free to write a post stating which specific make/model you would choose and why.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistol Choices II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gryffydd
December 4, 2009, 11:47 PM
S&W 8 shot .357 revolver. Haven't decided exactly which one yet ;)

This handgun will be completely free and come with whatever accessories you want.
And yet I'd STILL not take a Sig or an HK :D

BK
December 5, 2009, 12:22 AM
Darn. No Jimenez choice.:p

hammerklavier
December 5, 2009, 12:33 AM
Although I think Glocks and CZs are probably a bit more durable, Springfields just feel better in my hand, so that's how I voted. I would get either a .40 or .45.

mljdeckard
December 5, 2009, 12:39 AM
Remember that besides most people thinking 1911s are very shootable, they are also the easiest to repair by yourself. If this is one gun FOREVER, you will need to switch out some parts.

At this time, I have no plans to use anything besides my 1911 in the future. (Except when the .gov makes me.)

mokin
December 5, 2009, 12:43 AM
Browning High Power in 9mm.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 5, 2009, 12:47 AM
probably the Sig Sauer P228

md7
December 5, 2009, 12:48 AM
one handgun to do it all for the rest of your life huh? if i HAD to choose only one it would be a 4" .357 magnum revolver. GP 100 suits me.

Mags
December 5, 2009, 12:49 AM
Glock 19 I love my 1911s but if I only had to have one pistol it would be my Glock 19 hands down.

BrianB
December 5, 2009, 01:26 AM
Springfield for me. It's what I bought after looking around and asking around a lot. Glocks are great, but I like my trigger and safeties better. Sig's & H&K's would be on my list too, but I prefer something simple for a buy-and-hold defense gun.

FourNineFoxtrot
December 5, 2009, 02:32 AM
I voted Sig Sauer. Really, for a "Just One Gun" scenario, there's a lot of guns that would work just as well, but if I can only have one, I want my old friend Mr. P226. We understand each other. I might have wanted something smaller and lighter to carry, but if I have to choose between a gun that's comfortable to carry, and a gun I trust implicitly to not ever let me down, I'll take the latter.

jad0110
December 5, 2009, 02:55 AM
For me, a 4" S&W .357 Magnum, either a K or L Frame. A Ruger Police Service Six or Security Six would be fine too.

Good weapon for home protection, carry, plinking and even hunting, if need be.

weisse52
December 5, 2009, 02:56 AM
Colt 1911, Proven for 100 years.

zombienerd
December 5, 2009, 03:00 AM
Although I Love my Bersa, and I think I would do well with it forever, as long as I had access to replacement parts, I don't think that an autoloader should be in the running for "Needs to last forever".

I pick a Ruger single action, probably in .357. Less parts to break, guaranteed to outlast most shooters lifetimes. 4-6" barrel.

Although it loses ability against multiple attackers, the chance of that happening is very slim.

Although it doesn't ask in the poll, the "One" rifle would be a Marlin .30-30 Lever, like the revolver, it's practically indestructible.

flhtcuibyhd
December 5, 2009, 07:32 AM
Colt for me and with only one a Gold Cup. Best value out there.

mack_thr
December 5, 2009, 08:09 AM
To be sure, the poll as currently set up is capable of producing invalid results. In the poll choice list, you need to list categories that are exclusive one to another, such as "handgun manufacturers" only, or "handgun design styles" (e.g, 1911, single-action revolver) only.

As it stands, some poll choices now overlap. Consider flhtcuibyhd's vote as an example- he selected "Colt" b/c he would select a Gold Cup. This choice also fits into the poll choice category of "Any 1911" and he could (just as legitimately) have placed his vote there.

So a question would be, what is it that you most want to get at here: what "manufacturer" people would choose for said single handgun (if so you could probably just remove the choice "Any 1911")? Or, what "handgun design style" (e.g., 1911, striker-fired pistol, double-action revolver, single-action revolver, etc)? Or, what specific manufacturer-and-design-style (Colt 1911, Springfield 1911, S&W 1911, etc)? Other?

FROGO207
December 5, 2009, 08:48 AM
I have the one I want already, a S&W 457. 45 ACP with a modified laser sight and single stack,with the added bonus that it feels and shoots the best of all I tried in my hand.:D I may someday find a better choice but for now this is my go to choice.:cool:

Legionnaire
December 5, 2009, 09:00 AM
Four-inch stainless Ruger GP100 in .357 magnum. Utility, versatility, durability.

possummanplus3
December 5, 2009, 09:04 AM
one handgun to do it all for the rest of your life huh? if i HAD to choose only one it would be a 4" .357 magnum revolver. GP 100 suits me.
+1 for gp100!

almostfree
December 5, 2009, 09:06 AM
S&W 27-2 5" .357 magnum

earlthegoat2
December 5, 2009, 09:20 AM
Im sorry MM60 but your not going to win against the insatiable appetite for bickering and nitpicking that THR has.

You are not going to beat down the Glock/1911/CZ et al. fanboys.

Having said that I am going to start bickering and nitpicking.

Based on your NEW criteria for voting I would vote for a 1911 even though I dont even like them. I would vote this way because if I were to have one gun forever I would want it to be the one all my buddies had too so I could have ammo compatibility and parts interchangability. This entire poll is flawed as all polls are. They will never give you a definitive answer if so much criteria for voting is involved.

CombatArmsUSAF
December 5, 2009, 09:52 AM
MM60 - It looks as though H&K and Sig are still only moderately popular, even given your new criteria of it being free and coming with whatever accessories you could wish for.

What exactly are you looking for? An affirmation of your opinions?

It's time you face the music, The only reason HK's are so expensive is because of the name brand, not because they are a better quality pistol. Sigs, although far more popular than HK, have had alot of problems in the last few years. That in conjunction with some CS issues, deem Sigs not worth the price tag for most people.

bestseller92
December 5, 2009, 10:04 AM
I like several of these brands, but if I had to keep one for a lifetime, Glock would get a slight nod over Ruger for me. Absolute stone cold reliability, simplicity, and durability. You can find new factory hi cap mags for <$20, too, if you look around.

U.S.SFC_RET
December 5, 2009, 10:06 AM
Sig Sauer. Because they are dependable and the company stands behind their product. If I had to trust my life to a pistol it will be SIG.

Mike J
December 5, 2009, 11:46 AM
Voted XD because I know it works. I voted this way for 2 legged defense problems. For the woods I would rather have a revolver-the versatility of a good .357 revolver is hard to beat.
Don't it just stink that no matter how many times you try you can't make everyone like the same things you do.
MM60-I don't have a problem with your firearms choices but I do think you got some issues.

ojibweindian
December 5, 2009, 11:57 AM
A 5" XD45. 13 rounds in the gun, and a spare 13 round mag. Plus, the gun is pretty freakin' tough.

MM60
December 5, 2009, 12:34 PM
I'm not trying to get everybody to like the same handguns as myself. I simply wanted to get an honest opinion about which firearm everybody here would really want to carry if they were not limited by cost and could only choose one "best overall" handgun. I do not even own a Glock or H&K, but consider them to be very high-quality firearms. I added last night that I also consider the FNP9 and the FN 5.7 to be very high-quality firearms, and I do not own either of those.

I believe that my first poll may have been written poorly; I think it implied that people should vote for the best handgun in their current collection rather than what they felt was really the best out there (if there might have been a better choice). It seems to me that whatever handgun you feel is the best is the one you would want to carry on a daily basis.

I think that the poll results at the top of this page show much better logic than the results of the original poll. As we can see, 1911's are not considered by an overwhelming majority to be the best all-around carry pistol, as they are in third place. The popularity of the Glock, Sig, S&W, Springfield (I'm guessing mostly for the XD), and Ruger seem logical - especially considering that votes for the S&W and Ruger probably include votes for revolvers and semi-autos combined. CZ has only received 2 votes out of 77 - it seems as though, when able to choose only one handgun, most people wouldn't choose a CZ despite their large fan following on THR.

Now, seeing the results of this poll, maybe somebody could explain why the results of my second poll are so different than the results of my first poll. I thought I was asking basically the same question in both polls.

amprecon
December 5, 2009, 12:52 PM
Glocks are the AK-47 of the handgun world. If you want a nearly indestructible, accurate, simple, go-bang-everytime handgun.......I voted Glock.

CooperThunder
December 5, 2009, 01:10 PM
I have a Glock 23 and I love it. Would have preferred the G32 357 caliber but I still have to change my barrel to have it. Compact Glocks just fits my little hands.

Walkalong
December 5, 2009, 01:15 PM
Any quality 1911.

bugmania
December 5, 2009, 01:15 PM
I voted CZ. While I love my 1953 Colt Gov't 1911, all of my CZ's have been absolutely reliable, fit my hand like a glove, and I shoot them more accurately, if not by much, than my 1911.

Bobo
December 5, 2009, 03:01 PM
I voted Springfield. Specifically this...

Springfield XD .45 Compact, 4.04” Barrel, Dark Earth Grip, Stainless Slide, #XD9651HCSP06
Dawson Tritium adjustable sight set
ArmaLaser RSS Lasersight

Bobo
BTW, I answered the same in both polls.

sidheshooter
December 5, 2009, 03:06 PM
I voted Glock. With respect to folks that think the 1911 is easy to work on, the Glock is right up there for user-friendly. It is extremely durable, beyond popular, and reliable.

And this is coming from a guy who doesn't even own one at the moment (I just had to have a 3rd-gen smith instead); no blind fanboy am I.

But if I was buying based on OP criteria, that's the one. Probably in 9mm, but that might be another debate...

HisSoldier
December 5, 2009, 03:07 PM
"Any 1911" is poor wording, because so many people think the designation fits many guns that aren't true 1911's, plastic framed, double stack, and even double action. But if we are talking about a true 1911 then that's my choice.

Zach S
December 5, 2009, 03:15 PM
I voted "Any 1911," but as probably mentioned, any 1911 will not do.

Any properly built 1911 would do nicely though.

MM60
December 5, 2009, 03:21 PM
As everyone may have guessed, I voted for the Sig P226 Navy in 9mm (although it would be a difficult choice for me between a larger/heavier P226 9mm and the smaller/lighter P239 in .40S&W/.357Sig). I chose the P226 9mm because it is top-of-the-line in quality and reatures: made in Germany/USA, in widespread military and LE use, holds 15 rounds (with 32 round mags available), is DA/SA, accepts a wide variety of parts and accessories, and fits into about ten Safariland and London Bridge holsters that I was issued!

buck460XVR
December 5, 2009, 03:51 PM
Model 327 M&P, 8 Shot, .357 Magnum Revolver.

It will never wear out(not in my lifetime anyway).

Ammo is readily available(as compared to other ammo).

Low maintenance and parts do not need to be periodically replaced(something that needs to be addressed in a true long term SHTF situation).

Very accurate and easy to use. Altho it is not a true CWC piece, it is the best compromise when one can only have one handgun for every type of SD/HD.

Not only can it be used for protection against two-legged and four-legged predators, it can also be effectively used to hunt for food.

BHP FAN
December 5, 2009, 03:56 PM
Browning High Power in 9mm. Really I'm torn between the BHP,and a good,solid G.I. .45. I voted .45 last time, but just one sidearm,forever kinda spooked me. It's still pretty much a coin toss.I like both.Both are robust all steel pistols [the only kind I would consider for a ''lifetime''] and I'd actually feel comfortable with either.

seanie!
December 5, 2009, 04:15 PM
I voted Springfield. From there, I would be torn between an EMP or XDm

cjl8651
December 5, 2009, 04:54 PM
Walther P99 AS please.

modifiedbrowning
December 5, 2009, 05:00 PM
Walther P99 for me.

Redneck with a 40
December 5, 2009, 07:34 PM
XD-M in 40 cal, 17 round capacity is bad-ass.:D

kingmt
December 5, 2009, 07:59 PM
I really like this gun & it just seem to be a natural part of me. I am not the best pistol shoot & i shoot rather well with this gun. I prefer my Ruger but my wifes 24/7 .45 ACP shoots so well that I am going to get a 9mm compact for myself to carry concealed.

I'm surprised that Taurus & Kahr are not doing so well. Maybe just to early to tell.

PT1911
December 5, 2009, 08:02 PM
I had to go with the ruger... I currently own only one ruger.... a 10/22. but if I only had the choice of one handgun from only one maker for the rest of my life.... I would have to go ruger revolver of some sort for the versatility. I dont think many will disagree that ruger revolvers can handle the greatest variety of loads no matter the caliber/cartridge. As to which revolver specifically? well.. I have to think about that one.

sarduy
December 6, 2009, 03:26 AM
Glock -17

with extra parts for the rest of my life, plus a good supply of 30rds mags, holster, flash light, and the pistol bayonet (for the fun of it).

NinjaFeint
December 6, 2009, 11:46 AM
Glock 17

chaim
December 6, 2009, 12:18 PM
I picked S&W because they make more of my top contenders for my "if I only owned one gun" gun. My first two choices would be a 1911 (especially in the form of my Commander sized, alloy, S&W 1911SC) or my S&W 65LS. A lightweight, Commander-sized 1911 or a 3" .357mag K-frame give very similar advantages. They are big and heavy enough for some very good range time, yet small enough to make good carry guns, and both pack a pretty substantial caliber. Which I'd pick if I had to pick only one would depend greatly upon what day I was asked.

Some strong runners up include the SIG 229 in .40S&W (I shouldn't have sold mine); S&W M&P; Taurus PT940 or PT911; 1911s from Taurus, Springfield, Colt and a few others; the CZ PCR; or a Glock 19 or 26 (or the .40S&W versions).

If I went with one of the autoloaders that had .22 conversion kits I'd probably add one for cheaper shooting.

army_husbandky
December 6, 2009, 01:11 PM
I was only given one choice, but it is a toss-up for me, I have carried Taurus PT-145 mill pro for a while now and love the hell outta that little gun, but if I didn't have that to turn to, then I would have to turn to Springfield Armory, that got great firearms.

weisse52
December 6, 2009, 02:15 PM
As we can see, 1911's are not considered by an overwhelming majority to be the best all-around carry pistol, as they are in third place. The popularity of the Glock, Sig, S&W, Springfield (I'm guessing mostly for the XD), and Ruger

Not to nit-pick your poll, but it is flawed. While you assume that when they pick Sig, S&W and Springfield that they are choosing a model other than a 1911. Each of those, along with at least two others on the list make a 1911.

You openly say you think Sig and H&K are the "best", each poll is attempting to want to prove that these two picks are the best and everything else is junk. Polls can be put together with a slant and wording to support any side a person wants to support.

Sorry, as someone already mentioned. You mix companies with models and incorrectly assume the output is corrrect. I can just as easily suggest that those people who voted for Colt and Springfield all voted 1911 since that is the majority of what has been produced in the past. In that case I claim that the 1911 has a huge lead......:neener:

MM60
December 6, 2009, 02:54 PM
I am not implying that anything besides Sig and H&K are junk. I am implying that 1911's are outdated.

I would claim that the 1911 does not have a huge lead in this poll. The option of "any 1911" encompasses all 1911's by any manufacturer. This is because the 1911 is not unique to any particular manufacturer, whereas most other handgun models are. Therefore, there would be no reason to choose Colt or Springfield to vote for the 1911 because any 1911 is already more specifically stated in the option "any 1911. "Any 1911" is in 4th place to non-1911 models made by Glock, S&W, and Springfield.

The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

Feel free to write why you think the 1911 is not outdated, besides stating "it's still popular" or "it's a matter of personal taste" - which are not real reasons. I'd like to see some discussion involving the specifications and features of the 1911 design itself - compared to modern semi-autos made by any reputable manufacturer and intended for the same purposes as the 1911.

Gryffydd
December 6, 2009, 09:35 PM
Feel free to write why you think the 1911 is not outdated
Because it still works. It's reliable, accurate, ergonomic, and attractive. What else does it need? I would ask you to say why it's outdated. And don't say because it's old. That's not the same thing. And don't say because it isn't DA/SA or because it doesn't have a decocker or it isn't made out of polymer...those all have their place but a gun isn't outdated because it doesn't have them, and there are plenty people myself included who don't want many of the new "features"

MT GUNNY
December 6, 2009, 09:43 PM
I didn't know there was a Manufacture named " Any 1911". I think that option distorts the whole out come of your Question. I personally chose "S&W" for their 1911.

tipoc
December 6, 2009, 09:54 PM
An odd poll. A Colt what? A Kahr what? A Sig what? A 1911 by who?

The results become meaningless seems to me.

tipoc

MM60
December 6, 2009, 10:19 PM
Because it still works. It's reliable, accurate, ergonomic, and attractive. What else does it need? I would ask you to say why it's outdated. And don't say because it's old. That's not the same thing. And don't say because it isn't DA/SA or because it doesn't have a decocker or it isn't made out of polymer...those all have their place but a gun isn't outdated because it doesn't have them, and there are plenty people myself included who don't want many of the new "features"

The very definition of the term "outdated" is something that has been replaced by a new and improved version. You can't say the 1911 isn't outdated just because you don't like the features on newer and improved handgun designs. That would be like saying that black and white TVs aren't outdated because you don't want color, or that horse-drawn carriages aren't outdated because you don't want a motor. Are you implying that the Thompson sub-machinegun is not outdated because it works and it's reliable, accurate, ergonomic, and attractive? If it's not outdated, then why doesn't anybody use it anymore? It's because there are many better sub-machineguns available now. You're basically telling me that you don't care how handguns have improved over the last hundred years; you're just going to keep using an antiquated design. It's the same thing as it would have been in the 1800's if you had always carried a cap and ball revolver, and then when S&W full-cartridge designs became widely used - you said "the cap and ball revolver isn't outdated because I don't want their new (and much improved) feature". Does anybody see the lack of logic here?

Also, I am well aware that 1911 is not a manufacturer. It is a generic design made by many companies. That's why I didn't include it as any particular company's model. For any of you who voted Colt, S&W, Sig, Springfield, etc for that company's particular version of the 1911 - which are all basically the same, why did you not choose the "any 1911" option? Did it not occur to you that that option includes all 1911's from all manufacturers?

searcher451
December 6, 2009, 11:17 PM
I'm a Walther guy through and through, despite Umarex's parental controls, and am proud to own a number of Walther handguns that fit the forever bill just nicely. :)

Gryffydd
December 6, 2009, 11:54 PM
The very definition of the term "outdated" is something that has been replaced by a new and improved version.
And what can a Sig P220 do that a 1911 can't again?
All your cap and ball, horse drawn carriage etc. examples are just silly as a car can do things a carriage can't. There is a massive difference between a cap and ball revolver and a modern firearm. A Sig P220 and a 1911 are both 8+1 single stack .45 acp autos. Unless you get a 10mm 1911. (Oh, can't do that in a Sig...) Both are highly accurate and reliable. My point is that you can say DA/SA is an improvement, but that's a very arguable opinion. Your straw arguments have a very clear and objective difference between the old designs and the new one. However, simply being SAO does not automatically make a gun out dated.
You can't say the 1911 isn't outdated just because you don't like the features on newer and improved handgun designs.
And likewise you can't say it IS outdated just because your tastes lie elsewhere.

Does anybody see the lack of logic here?
Don't worry, we do.

wesessiah
December 7, 2009, 12:22 AM
I think that the poll results at the top of this page show much better logic than the results of the original poll. As we can see, 1911's are not considered by an overwhelming majority to be the best all-around carry pistol, as they are in third place. The popularity of the Glock, Sig, S&W, Springfield (I'm guessing mostly for the XD), and Ruger seem logical - especially considering that votes for the S&W and Ruger probably include votes for revolvers and semi-autos combined. CZ has only received 2 votes out of 77 - it seems as though, when able to choose only one handgun, most people wouldn't choose a CZ despite their large fan following on THR. the 2 have gone up since you posted this, but the original thread wasn't vague at all. it seems as though you just didn't like the results. you specifically stated someone doesn't have to own the pistol. just going back and forth and looking at the names in the poll results, there are a lot of people who voted in this one that didn't in the other, and people who voted in the other and not this one. btw, there isn't some irregular fan following here at thr, it seems you don't venture over to thefiringline, or glocktalk... yes, even the guys at glocktalk seem to hold cz in high regard. you may not like any 1911 (i don't either for that matter, they're overpriced, and don't provide any significant advantage other than being a solid competition piece) but someone has to be in serious denial to even act like the 1911 isn't the most popular thing out there, maybe with the exception of glock. so many manufacturers making them is a testament to that.

jackpinesavages
December 7, 2009, 12:42 AM
My Dan Wesson CTG .44 :scrutiny:

kingmt
December 7, 2009, 12:45 AM
I just wanted to through my 2 cents in also. My understanding was to pick a gun for a life time & not which one we thought was better. There is several guns I like by different companies. The one I picked is the one that I shoot the best but that doesn't mean it is the best.

As far as leaning the poll I agree. It has owners & wanttabes of 1911's all pooling together no mater the manufacture. I think that gives the a huge advantage.

Last of all it's just a thread to talk about your thoughts not to take away the gun you prefer.

I am really surprised at the way this is going so far. I know Glock would be ahead but the other numbers weren't what I had expected.

porterdog
December 7, 2009, 01:46 AM
G29


That is all.

JTQ
December 7, 2009, 08:43 AM
For any of you who voted Colt, S&W, Sig, Springfield, etc for that company's particular version of the 1911 - which are all basically the same, why did you not choose the "any 1911" option? Did it not occur to you that that option includes all 1911's from all manufacturers?

You clearly are not a "1911 guy" to suggest these are all the same.

Colt is the original and has it's own fan base. Most Colt models have the Series 80 firing pin safety.

Springfield's don't have a firing pin safety, but do have the ILS and a non-standard firing pin, and are made in Brazil.

S&W and Sig have external extractors. S&W has a Mochak designed firing pin safety deactivated by the grip safety. Sig has a firing pin safety that operates off the trigger like the Colt Series 80.

To a 1911 user, most of these features are significant in one way or another. Some are must have's for one purchaser, others are automatic disqualifiers for others. It does make a difference who makes the 1911.

I realize you probably don't understand the significance of these features, but you could think of them as being equivalent to a magazine disconnect safety. Some want it, others won't have it, but it does make a difference.

I realize in the pistol business both of your favorites, Sig and H&K, really only make semi-auto's, but manufactures like Ruger and S&W have a huge diversity in the handguns they make.

You keep mentioning how the H&K is used by so many police and military and the 1911 is not as if this is somehow a point in favor of H&K parts availability. Have you ever walked into your local gun store and tried to find some kind of H&K part, even just a magazine? They are just not there. You could probably go to a couple of gun stores and assemble enough parts off the shelves to put together an entire 1911 from scratch.

It does seem as if your only point is to try and bash the 1911. If it doesn't work for you don't worry about it. There are millions of 1911's in the world and they are loved by many, for whatever reason. We understand you don't get it and it doesn't look like you are going to. Just give it a rest and move on.

easyg
December 7, 2009, 10:40 AM
One handgun for the rest of my life, for all situations....

Glock G22

And a Storm Lake 357Sig barrel to go with it. ;)

gbelleh
December 7, 2009, 11:04 AM
What, no Lorcin on the poll??

I voted Sig only because if I had to have only one forever, I'd want it to be as versatile as possible, so a Sig P250 with all caliber kits would cover many different size and caliber needs.

GunNut
December 7, 2009, 02:07 PM
I'll take a Glock 19, 23 or 32. Figure one of those could handle just about everything that I can see needing a handgun for.

tipoc
December 7, 2009, 05:06 PM
Interesting. This poll includes the option of choosing revolvers yet it is placed in the auto loaders section rather than the General Handguns section. Seems to me this is an oversight that will and has scewed the results.

tipoc

mcdonl
December 7, 2009, 05:09 PM
I went Ruger, for the GP100....

I understand that 1911's have been around forever but I guess in the world where there is only one gun, per person for ever I would want the one with the least maintenance and most likely to go bang every time.

BHP FAN
December 7, 2009, 07:45 PM
The Mcdon'l makes sense.

Diocoles
December 7, 2009, 07:49 PM
Beretta has been building weapons longer and better than any other manufacturer in the world. Literally by CENTURIES.

CZ223
December 7, 2009, 08:05 PM
Self defence and not as as an all around gun for other chores, I choose the Glock 23 in 40 S&W. If it were an all around gun I would likely choose a 686 with 4" to 6" barrel. The only accessories I need for the Glock are a good holster, a bunch of mags and night sites. Oh wait, I aldready have all that stuff, I'm good.:D I also have the 686 and a few 1911's in case I mad ethe wrong choiuces to begin with.:evil:

CZ223
December 7, 2009, 08:14 PM
Someone mentioned the 1911 for the sake of simplicity. While I agree that the 1911 is a relatively simple machine, the Glock is just as simple if not more so. With a hanful of parts that likey would cost less than a good meal out, you would be ready to go for a loooong time.

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 08:25 PM
Gaston Glock totally revolutionized the handgun world with ingenious design by meeting this criteria:

1. The design has to be self-loading.
2. The pistol must fire the NATO-standard 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge.
3. The magazines would not require any means of assistance for loading.
4. The magazines must have a minimum capacity of 8 rounds.
5. All actions necessary to prepare the pistol for firing and any actions required after firing must be done single-handed, either right- or left-handed.
6. The pistol must be absolutely secure against accidental discharge from shock, stroke and drops from a height of 2m onto a steel plate.
7. Disassembly of the main parts for maintenance and reassembling must be possible without the use of any tools.
8. Maintenance and cleaning of the pistol must be accomplished without the use of tools.
9. The pistol's construction may not exceed 58 individual parts (equivalent of a P38).
10. Gauges, measuring and precise testing devices must not be necessary for the long-term maintenance of the pistol.
11. The manufacturer is required to provide the Ministry of Defence with a complete set of engineering drawings and exploded views. These must be supplied with all the relevant details for the production of the pistol.
12. All components must be fully interchangeable between pistols.
13. No more than 20 malfunctions are permitted during the first 10,000 rounds fired, not even minor jams that can be cleared without the use of any tools.
14. After firing 15,000 rounds of standard ammunition, the pistol will be inspected for wear. The pistol will then be used to fire an overpressure test cartridge generating 5,000 bar (considerably higher than normal operating pressures). The critical components must continue to function properly and be up to specifications, otherwise the pistol will be disqualified.
15. When handled properly, under no circumstances may the user be endangered by case ejection.
16. The muzzle energy must be at least 441.5 J when firing a 9mm S-round/P-08 Hirtenberger AG.
17. Pistols scoring less than 70% of the total available points will not be considered for military use.

The best I can tell no one has come close yet. There are many polymer imitators and haters but it is what it is...he built the better mouse trap like it or not.:D

BushyGuy
December 7, 2009, 08:30 PM
my first choice would be a Sig Sauer but i cant afford one so my second choice that i can afford right now is Ruger,

i prefer Sig if money was no issue and i could afford one- i would like the Sig Sauer Dark Elite in 9mm.

Gryffydd
December 7, 2009, 08:34 PM
Gaston Glock totally revolutionized the handgun world with ingenious design by meeting this criteria:
Yes, the criteria from the Austrian military was met by....Glock! What do you know?

The best I can tell no one has come close yet.
I would imagine that there's a list somewhere of pistols that applied and did not make it then? In exactly which of those categories is Glock singularly qualified?

Marshall
December 7, 2009, 08:53 PM
I chose "Browning" for the Hi Power.

But I almost chose "Colt" for a 1911. (I didn't even notice the "any 1911" option. :()

I bet a decent amount of people clicked on the "Brand" of 1911 they chose, like I almost did.

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 08:56 PM
All of them.....they got the contract and many more all over the world as well. Here is a list of their users:

* slide).

4. Users

* Australia: Royal Australian Air Force (Glock 19), Australian Customs (Glock 17), and all Australian police services (Glock 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27) except the South Australia Police and Victoria Police. A Glock 17 outfitted with a thumb safety was designed specifically for the Tasmania Police. [43]
* Austria: Austrian Armed Forces (Glock 17 designated Pistole 80). [44] [45]
* Belgium: Belgian police (Glock 17), [45] Belgian State Security Service. [46]
* Canada: Numerous local law enforcement agencies to include: Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Saskatoon, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service, Toronto. [45]
* Ecuador: National Police, various special police units such as the GOE and GIR. [45]
* Fiji: Tactical Response Unit. [47]
* Finland: The primary service firearm of the police. [48] Also in use by the Defence Forces, Department of Corrections (Vankeinhoitolaitos) and Border Guard. [49]
* France: French Army—certain naval and parachute units (Glock 17). [50]
* Georgia: Special forces. [45]
* Germany: GSG 9 of the German Federal Police, [45] Spezialeinsatzkommandos (special response teams) of several state police departments.
* Hong Kong: Special Duties Unit, Hong Kong Police Force. [45]
* Iceland: Icelandic National Police, Víkingasveitin, ICRU. [51] [52] [53]
* India: National Security Guards (Glock 17). [45]
* Indonesia: Indonesian Army Kopassus, Indonesian National Police, Detachment 88.[citation needed]
* Iraq: Iraqi security forces (largest user, purchased 125,163 Glock 19s). [54]
* Italy: Italian special forces—GIS, NOCS, "Col Moschin" Regiment, COMSUBIN, Intelligence and State Security.[citation needed]
* Jordan: Presidential Guard. [45]
* Latvia: Latvian Military (Glock 17), police. [55]
* Lebanon: Used by various police and army units.
* Lithuania: Lithuanian Armed Forces (Glock 17). [56]
* Luxembourg: Glock 17 and 26 variants used by the Unité Spéciale de la Police of the Grand Ducal Police. [57] [58]
* Macedonia: Special police forces, traffic police[citation needed]
* Malaysia: Various forces of Malaysian Armed Forces and Royal Malaysian Police units. [59]
* Mexico: Secretaria de Marina. [45]
* Montenegro: Military of Montenegro [60]
* Netherlands: Military of the Netherlands (Glock 17), [61] Dutch police (Glock 17, about 250 pistols in use as a stopgap measure). [62] [63] [64]
* New Zealand: New Zealand Police (Glock 17). [65]
* Norway: Royal Norwegian Army (Glock 17 designated P-80). [45]
* Philippines: Philippine National Police, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). [45]
* Poland: Polish police, [66] Polish Military Police (Glock 17).
* Portugal: Used in the police HK PSP, GNR (Glock 19) , In the Portuguese armed forces (Glock 17)... Glock 18c is also used in the DAE.[citation needed]
* Romania: Issued to deployed and several special operations units.[citation needed]
* Spain: Guardia Civil's UEI (Glock 17). [67]
* Sweden: Swedish Armed Forces (Glock 17 designated Pistol 88 and Glock 19 as Pistol 88B, [68] [69] ) Swedish Customs Service, Swedish Coast Guard.
* Switzerland : Police (Gendarmerie) Cantonal of Geneva are equipped with the Glock 19 [70] The Glarus Cantonal Police also use the Glock 19.
* Taiwan: Garrison Command. National Intelligence Coordinating Agency.[citation needed]
* Thailand: Policeman in 3 south province by G2G buying condition. (Glock 19, 2,238 pcs.) and some policeman, soldier and citizen nationwide. (some models) [45]
* United Kingdom: Greater Manchester Police, Tactical Firearms Unit Specialist Firearms Command of the London Metropolitan Police Service, [71] Police Service of Northern Ireland and certain Scottish Police Specialist Firearms Units (Glock 17). [72]
* United States: FBI, Department of Treasury IRS Criminal Investigation Division, [73] DEA, [74] EPA Criminal Investigation Division, New York City Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Philadelphia Police Department, thousands of other agencies at the national, state, and local levels.
* Venezuela


Can you tell me of any handgun manufacturer with this kind of a world wide market share?:D

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 09:11 PM
Just look at their line up.....who can match this?

del number Cartridge Total length Barrel length Magazine Capacity [37] Weight
(unloaded) Style
(mm) (in) (mm) (in) Standard Optional (g) (oz)
17, 17C 9x19mm 186 7.32 114 4.49 17 10, 19, 33 625 22 Standard
17L 225 8.86 153 6.02 17 10, 19, 33 670 23.6
18, 18C 185 7.28 114 4.49 33 10, 17, 19 620 21.9
19, 19C 174 6.85 102 4.01 15 10, 17, 19, 33 595 21 Compact
20, 20C, 20SF 10mm Auto 193 7.60 117 4.61 15 10 785 27.7 Standard
21, 21C, 21SF .45 ACP 13 10 745 26.3
22, 22C .40 S&W 186 7.32 114 4.49 15 10, 17 650 22.9
23, 23C 174 6.85 102 4.01 13 10, 15, 17 600 21.2 Compact
24, 24C 225 8.86 153 6.02 15 10, 17 757 26.7 Competition
25 .380 ACP 174 6.85 102 4.01 15 17, 19 570 20.1 Compact
26 9x19mm 160 6.30 88 3.46 10 12, 15, 17, 19, 33 560 19.8 Subcompact
27 .40 S&W 9 11, 13, 17 560 19.8
28 .380 ACP 10 12, 15, 17, 19 529 18.7
29, 29SF 10mm Auto 172 6.77 96 3.78 10 15 700 24.7
30, 30SF .45 ACP 10 9, 13 680 24
31, 31C .357 SIG 186 7.32 114 4.49 15 10, 17 660 23.3 Standard
32, 32C 174 6.85 102 4.01 13 10, 15, 17 610 21.5 Compact
33 160 6.30 88 3.46 9 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 560 19.8 Subcompact
34 9x19mm 207 8.15 135 5.31 17 10, 19, 33 650 22.9 Competition
35 .40 S&W 15 10, 17 695 24.5
36 .45 ACP 172 6.77 96 3.78 6 - 570 20.1 Slimline
37 .45 GAP 189 7.44 116 4.56 10 - 735 25.9 Standard
38 174 6.85 102 4.01 8 10 685 24.2 Compact
39 160 6.30 88 3.46 6 8, 10 548 19.3 Subcompact
Notes:

* Glock pistols designated by "C" after the model number are equipped with ported barrels and slides to compensate for muzzle rise.

* Glock 18/18C pistols are 9x19mm Parabellum select fire machine pistols and not available to the general public in most countries.

* Glock pistols designated "SF" are "short-framed". They have a 2.5 mm (.10 inch) shorter trigger travel and the heel of the pistol is narrowed by 4 mm (.16 inches) for the full-sized framed Glock 20 and Glock 21.

* Glock 25 or 28 pistols are not available to the general public in the United States, because a small pistol chambered for the .380 ACP cartridge does not meet the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation of pistols under the Gun Control Act of 1968, according to the BATFE's point system. [3

Glock seems to be doing something right. More people trust their lives to a Glock that any other pistol it seems.

Gryffydd
December 7, 2009, 09:18 PM
All of them...
Glock is the only company making an auto loader? The only company making something with at least 8 rounds? etc. etc. I think you need to reread my question. The only company making a pistol in 9mm? Wow!
Yes, Glocks are great, no argument there. But to say no one else comes close to meeting those criteria is silly. Yes, they have won a lot of contracts. No argument there. But contracts are often won for more reasons than just the intrinsic characteristics of the guns, so it's really not the greatest measure of the quality of a gun. Yes, they certainly have a wide variety as well. I especially give them credit for offering something in 10mm. I wish more manufacturers would.

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 09:29 PM
Glock is the only company making an auto loader? The only company making something with at least 8 rounds? etc. etc. I think you need to reread my question. The only company making a pistol in 9mm? Wow!
Yes, Glocks are great, no argument there. But to say no one else comes close to meeting those criteria is silly. Yes, they have won a lot of contracts. No argument there. But contracts are often won for more reasons than just the intrinsic characteristics of the guns, so it's really not the greatest measure of the quality of a gun. Yes, they certainly have a wide variety as well. I especially give them credit for offering something in 10mm. I wish more manufacturers would.
As Sir Winston Churchill once stated.

The truth:

Some will deny it, some will deride it, but in the end there it is.

In my humble opinion of 50 years with guns, there just isn't a better designed or manufactured handgun to date than the Glock. That is a sad testimony for America as well seeing we are using an Italian design of 1575 for our military.

tipoc
December 7, 2009, 09:48 PM
Pappy,

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That is a sad testimony for America as well seeing we are using an Italian design of 1575 for our military.

tipoc

tipoc
December 7, 2009, 09:58 PM
If you were only able to own one handgun, to be used for self-defense purposes in any given situation for the rest of your life, which handgun would you choose?

So I'd have something else for hunting. Something else for target work, something else for military purposes, etc. I'd chose what I already have. Colt Commander in .38 Super. With the accesories and ammo.

If I could not get that I'd take a S&W M624 with a 4" tapered barrel in .44 Spl.



tipoc

Gryffydd
December 7, 2009, 10:36 PM
In my humble opinion of 50 years with guns, there just isn't a better designed or manufactured handgun to date than the Glock.
That's all well and good. But I haven't seen you actually respond to any of my questions yet. I also see that you seem to have missed the fact that I acknowledged that they are fantastic weapons in many respects. I merely asked you to explain some of your more questionable statements.

That is a sad testimony for America as well seeing we are using an Italian design of 1575 for our military.
I had no idea that Beretta was making the M9 for that long! WOW! Or did I miss something and we're actually using these:
http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000086.jpg

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 11:14 PM
That's all well and good. But I haven't seen you actually respond to any of my questions yet. I also see that you seem to have missed the fact that I acknowledged that they are fantastic weapons in many respects. I merely asked you to explain some of your more questionable statements.


I had no idea that Beretta was making the M9 for that long! WOW! Or did I miss something and we're actually using these:
http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000086.jpg
You want an argument and that is not going to happen my friend! America has lost the electronic, automotive, camera and firearms market shares because they are no longer the craftsmen of the world. Defect ratio's acceptable up to 10% is no longer an acceptable criteria to capture a world market. That's the sad part and the sad testimony of Americans. We all need to wake up and strive to get our America back.

wesessiah
December 7, 2009, 11:19 PM
pappy109:

i think i have a guns and ammo mag that lists the 60 countries; i'll look for it.

The pistol was required to pass a wide variety of tests:

The police required that the pistol ensure the highest level of comfort, an extended slide release was added as well as an extended magazine release and the trigger was reshaped to give a more consistent pull throughout the trigger stroke.

The pistol must be 100% reliable in extreme conditions, the following is a list of some of the minimum requirements.

Must be able to complete the following without failure:

4000 dry firings
3000 De-cockings
Operator level disassembly 1350 times with out ware or damage to components.
Complete disassembly 150 times, this is all the way down, pins, springs etc.
100% interchangability, any number of pistols randomly selected, disassembled, parts mixed and reassembled with no failures of any kind including loss of accuracy.


Safety requirements:

Drop test
1.5 meter (4.9”) drop test, this is done 54 times with the pistol loaded (blank) and the hammer cocked. Dropping the pistol on the butt, the muzzle, back of the slide, sides of the gun, top of the slide, in essence, any angle that you could drop the gun from. This is done on concrete and 0 failures are allowed! A failure is the gun firing.

3meter drop (9.8”) 5 times with the pistol loaded (blank) and the hammer cocked, This is done on concrete and 0 failures are allowed! A failure is the gun firing.

After these tests are complete the gun must fire without service.

The factory contracted an independent lab to do additional testing on guns that previously passed the drop tests. These pistol were dropped an additional 352 times without failure.

The pistol must also complete an environmental conditions test:
This means cold, heat, dust/sand and mud.
The pistol must fire after being frozen for 24 hours at –35C (-36F).
The pistol must fire after being heated for 24 hours at 70C (126F)
The pistol must fire after being submerged in mud, sand and combinations including being stripped of oil then completing the sand and mud tests again.

Service life:
The service life requirement from the Czech police was 15,000 rounds of +P ammo!
The pistol will exceed 30,000 rounds with ball 9mm.

Reliability:
The reliability requirements for the P-01 pistol are 99.8%, that’s a .2% failure rate.
This equals 20 stoppages in 10,000 rounds or 500 “Mean Rounds Between Failure” (MRBF)
During testing, the average number of stoppages was only 7 per 15,000 rounds fired, this is a .05% failure rate, a MRBF rate of 2142 rounds! Over 4 time the minimum acceptable requirement.
The U.S. Army MRBF requirement is 495 rounds for 9mm pistols with 115 grain Ball ammunition.

Heritage:
The P-01 is based on the CZ 75, the most used pistol in the world. Over 60 countries use it as the standard side arm of their Armies, National police forces, National security agencies or other Law enforcement organizations. No other pistol can make this claim.

others that have passed the testing, from what i understand, are: sig 226 sig 228, browning hi-power, Beretta m9, bretta cougar and CZ 75 B

AKElroy
December 7, 2009, 11:25 PM
How I voted & what I want to shoot are not the same gun. If I was FORCED to only have one forever, it would be a G19. Great CCW, accurate, durable, great parts availability & a monkey can fix it.

What I WANT would be a toss up between a 1911 and CZ75/85.

MM60
December 7, 2009, 11:36 PM
That is a sad testimony for America as well seeing we are using an Italian design of 1575 for our military.

I think Pappy109 meant 1975...? Wikipedia says the Beretta 92 has been "In service 1975-present".

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 11:41 PM
I think Pappy109 meant 1975...? Wikipedia says the Beretta 92 has been "In service 1975-present".
Yes thank you it was a typo on the date it should read 1975

Pappy109
December 7, 2009, 11:52 PM
pappy109:

i think i have a guns and ammo mag that lists the 60 countries; i'll look for it.



others that have passed the testing, from what i understand, are: sig 226 sig 228, browning hi-power, Beretta m9, bretta cougar and CZ 75 B
I am by no means an expert at anything. I just know a good thing when I see it. I am by no means saying that everybody has to see it my way either. That would be pompous and narcissistic. I only state my opinion as was asked for by the OP.

wesessiah
December 8, 2009, 12:05 AM
^ i understand, i just wanted to throw that out there as an nbc "the more you know" thing. btw, i wouldn't try to take anything away from glock, they tend to be excellent guns, though i personally can't get used to the grip angle, and don't prefer them. btw, apparantly the g17 is in that small group of guns i mentioned.

Tacbandit
December 8, 2009, 12:10 AM
Glock 19...no question!

Gryffydd
December 8, 2009, 12:12 AM
You want an argument and that is not going to happen my friend!
I don't want an argument, I just am looking for an explanation of a few points you made which don't make sense to me. I agree that they're fantastic weapons, but to say they're the only ones that come close to meeting an objective set of criteria that clearly are met by a number of other guns does need to be questioned.
I only state my opinion as was asked for by the OP.
Which is good, and welcomed, and there is a lot of evidence to back up your opinion. It's just that the way you phrased it in the context of your original post it didn't sound like your opinion, it sounded like you were making the absolute statement that no other guns came close to meeting those criteria, that's all. Your tone did change quite drastically once wesessiah mentioned the other guns that also passed the testing ;)

Pappy109
December 8, 2009, 12:28 AM
My attitude never changes. I am too old and set in my ways they say.:D

Now the one thing I can say with total certainty is that monkeys can not fix Glocks. I have personally observed my son-in-law trying and he failed.:confused: More than once too!:banghead:

Pappy109
December 8, 2009, 12:36 AM
^ i understand, i just wanted to throw that out there as an nbc "the more you know" thing. btw, i wouldn't try to take anything away from glock, they tend to be excellent guns, though i personally can't get used to the grip angle, and don't prefer them. btw, apparantly the g17 is in that small group of guns i mentioned.
I saw that but it was academic at that point, but I did enjoy the conversation.:D

wow6599
December 8, 2009, 12:39 AM
I voted Ruger.....but I wouldn't buy a new one (long story).
Give me a 4" or 6" GP100. It will take all the abuse you can throw at it, .38 Spl to hot .357 Mag and no magazines to worry about.

wesessiah
December 8, 2009, 12:41 AM
^ referring to monkies... i have to admit, the first time i went to field strip a glock (all i'd owned to that point were hammer fired guns, and my friend just picked this one up after i took him to a gun show) it took me a few minutes to figure it out. i got all pissed off pulling the slide back exactly 4mm (or whatever) the manual says to pull it back and move the slide lock down. the slide just wouldn't come off, and the manual didn't say anything about pulling the trigger or whatever making sure the striker wasn't cocked... finally i just decided to pull it to see if it worked... instant face palm moment.

tipoc
December 8, 2009, 06:34 AM
Not to be a pest but it was in 1978 that Congress authorized the Dept. of Defense to begin trials for a new pistol to replace the M1911A1. It wasn't until 1985 that the M9 was officially adopted as that sidearm. 25 years ago.

tipoc

Ryder
December 8, 2009, 06:42 AM
If I can only have one it's going to be capable of very heavy loads and built like a tank.

http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/CompanyLogos/log-rgr.gif

:D

waterhouse
December 8, 2009, 07:04 PM
The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

I'm curious, you stated in your other thread that the 1911 needs a hex key to field strip. Here you mention that it is "tool-takedown." What brand 1911 are you referring to? I own 6 or 7 1911s from various manufacturers (Colt, STI, Dan Wesson, Smith & Wesson, Caspian, Fusion) and none needs a hex key to field strip.

Before I get called a 1911 fanboy, I generally happen to carry a completely different heavy, low capacity, single stack gun, except it is made by HK. I also own about a dozen other HK pistols and 8 or 9 Sigs, but I'd carry a 1911 before any of them, mostly because they are easy to conceal and I shoot them well, probably in part because of that SAO trigger that is so outdated.

IdahoLT1
December 8, 2009, 10:29 PM
In the OP's first thread, i understood it as what pistol would i like to own, and to me, it was a 10mm. Probably a Dan Wesson CBOB 10mm. In this thread, though, i voted Beretta. I dont need a pistol to hunt, thats what rifles and shotguns are for. I need a pistol to defend myself, an in my experience, none of the pistols ive ever owned(Glock, S&W, Ruger, Kahr, Taurus, EAA) have been better than my Beretta 92.

MM60 will try to convince me that SIG is better but this last summer, SIG recalled 3000+ of their P238's. So much for "being the best, most advanced, newest, most logical choice".

He is very ignorant and stubborn. He bashes Kahr, without any knowledge or experieance with their guns, only because of their price tag, looks, low capacity and how the company name sounds. Little does he know, Kahr entered the pistol business after Florida passed the approval of a concealed weapons liscense and during the AWB of '94. They made their guns to be exclusively conceal carry pieces with less than 10 rounds. And they took the market by storm. They still are one of the best choices for conceal carry, but MM60 will never buy one because they look like a Kel-Tec, sound like they are from Iraq, have low capacity and dont have an over-inflated SIG or HK price tag. Yea, thats real logical decision making.

Im suprised he hasnt made 12 threads with skewed poll options to get the numbers to justify why he likes SIGs and HK. The only way SIG will have a huge lead in poll options is if the question was "what would you prefer to defend yourself with? A) a pointy stick B) a SIG or C) an empty 1911"

tipoc
December 9, 2009, 03:20 AM
The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.


Interesting "poll" here. When is a poll not really a poll? When it's used not to learn something but to prove some point of the poster. I'm not sure what the point is though.

In the post quoted above the OP insults all individuals who choose to tote a 1911 based gun or a wheelgun for their personal self defense. "Fanboys" carries a derogatory note to it. Keep in mind the poll does not indicate what gun they believe the Army should carry or what they would want on a battlefield, or "come the revolution" etc., but what they would want for self defense. Personal self defense. While the OP has strong opinions against the revolver or 1911 he appears to be ignorant of both.

1911s do not require any tools to field strip. Those that are equipped with two piece guide rods do. But the option to have a two piece or one piece guide rod (as distinct from the GI style recoil spring retainer) is a shooters choice option which the basic 1911 design allows for. There is no gun as versatile as the 1911 when it comes to the ability to adapt them to personal use or to differing mission requirements. This is one thing, among several, that has kept them in the front ranks of defensive and competitive tools internationally.

Many individuals also choose revolvers as their primary defensive tools. This is because they work well at that and many people prefer what wheelguns bring to the table. The decision to carry a GP100 as your personal CCW does not mean you think the Marine Corp should dump the M9 in favor of a wheelgun. This does not mean that these folks have no "logic or common sense" as the OP states.

The OP appears to be unaware of the evolution of both the 1911 and of modern revolvers. For a fella who claims to be an experienced gunny he shows a Grand Canyon of not knowingness. I don't mean to be disrespectful saying this but it's kinda obvious.

tipoc

Zach S
December 9, 2009, 01:37 PM
The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.
I can detail strip any 1911 I own, with a pencil, nail, paperclip, just about anything stiff and thin enough to push the firing pin in. Everything else can be removed with part of the gun.

On my mil-spec, I didnt need that much.

You ever meet me in person, you dont want to bet me. I've won well over $100 on this bet, one or five bucks at a time. Tried to bet $100 a few times, but at that point they knew I was holding a good hand and walked away, or settled on $5...

Gryffydd
December 9, 2009, 01:51 PM
The OP appears to be unaware of the evolution of both the 1911 and of modern revolvers. For a fella who claims to be an experienced gunny he shows a Grand Canyon of not knowingness.

+1
Here's a little nugget of wisdom regarding how long it takes to reload a revolver...
It would be much much faster and simpler to drop the empty mag, put in a new one, and rack the slide (2 seconds to change mags compared to 15 seconds to reload a cylinder).

MM60
December 9, 2009, 02:07 PM
Tipoc and Gryffydd,
I am well aware of the differences between older and newer versions of both the 1911 and revolvers. All you did here is you took a quote from a post that I wrote on a different thread and re-posted it out of context. Here is the entire paragraph:

I would definitely not encourage your sister to buy a revolver. A revolver may be marginally simpler to use for the first five or six shots, but if she is ineffective with those - there is probably no chance of her reloading. It would be much much faster and simpler to drop the empty mag, put in a new one, and rack the slide (2 seconds to change mags compared to 15 seconds to reload a cylinder). And if she would carry a revolver with a speed loader, she might as well just carry any compact semi-auto and carry the same number of rounds in one magazine - it would take up the same amount of space and there'd be no reloading involved. Either the Sig P239 or HK USP Compact would be ideal for SD carry in a purse. I personally can't think of any SD situation where a revolver would be better than a semi-auto; large-caliber revolvers are useful against some animals, but small-caliber/small-frame revolvers are outdated and impractical for all purposes as far as I'm concerned.

I was not suggesting that it necessarily must take 15 seconds to reload the cylinder of any revolver. I was suggesting that it would take about 15 seconds to reload the cylinder without the use of a speedloader, especially in a life-or-death SD situation in which the woman attempting to reload the revolver would likely be extremely stressed and nervous. How fast can you empty your spent casings, insert 6 new cartridges one-by-one, close the cylinder, and have your sights back on target? I imagine that it would take you longer than it would to eject an empty mag, insert a full mag, rack the slide, and be back on target. But go ahead and keep telling me that I don't what I'm talking about.

To see my entire post, it is #31 at this link:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489640&highlight=sister

Gryffydd
December 9, 2009, 02:20 PM
Your problem is that you're assuming it must take that long because it would be impractical to carry a speedloader or speedstrip. Which is silly. You're presenting a false dilemma between a 2 second reload--a near best case scenario for a non-shootist--and the worst possible way to reload a revolver. You framed the scenario to be heavily weighted towards your prejudices.

I am well aware of the differences between older and newer versions of both the 1911 and revolvers.
So then what's all this talk about tool take-down 1911s?

MM60
December 9, 2009, 02:24 PM
I also stated that, if anybody is going to carry a 5 to 7-shot revolver and a speedloader, they might as well either carry a 7 to 8-shot single-stack semi-auto and a thin spare magazine, or even a 12-shot double-stack semi-auto and no spare magazine - both of which would take up about the same amount of space as a small revolver and a speedloader. No matter how you look at it - the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.

katokahn99
December 9, 2009, 02:34 PM
I went with Springfield. Specifically the Loaded UC .45 stainless. Still on the wishlist. I had a series 70 and a series 80 Colt Commander that I gave up years ago (I kick myself daily for having done that!!!) but I think the updates the newer 1911s have will make up for it...once I get the new one and get it working reliably.

If I was not able to buy another handgun ever again, I'd be more than happy with my XDc Tactical in 45 acp.

If the question was which gun for all around utility, I would have said S&W 686.

Side note: I've noticed an awful lot of personnal attacks on just this thread...is that really how we do business on THR??? Kinda doesn't live up to what the name implies, does it?

Gryffydd
December 9, 2009, 03:34 PM
the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.
They both have the advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is ALWAYS the right answer.

tipoc
December 9, 2009, 04:33 PM
I also stated that, if anybody is going to carry a 5 to 7-shot revolver and a speedloader, they might as well either carry a 7 to 8-shot single-stack semi-auto and a thin spare magazine, or even a 12-shot double-stack semi-auto and no spare magazine - both of which would take up about the same amount of space as a small revolver and a speedloader. No matter how you look at it - the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.

Here you make a choice to either purposely deflect the issue or you legitimately do not understand the question being discussed.

In an earlier post in this thread you state that revolvers are outdated and that those who choose them for personal defense are "lacking in common sense" in their choice. You state unequivocally that revolvers are not viable choices for personal defense. That is the question in front of us.

Wheelgunners don't lack common sense (well some do but that's got nothing to do with the gun they choose). They have made some decisions based on their needs and abilities. For some it's a matter of balancing size and power in a package that they shoot well and handle well. For some it's the sense of having "6 for sure" rather than 7 or 8 that may jam, they have confidence in the revolver. For some it's caliber choice. For others...they just like wheelguns and handle them well. There are other reasons as well.

Revolver users know that their sidearm of choice does not carry as many rounds as a pistol does and may be slower to reload (for most anyway). A new shooter such as yourself is not showing them anything here. They've made an informed choice. DA revolvers have been around for over a century their materials and construction have been much improved on in that time. As a tool for CCW, home defense and personal self defense they are time tested and a viable option for many. From .38 Spl./.357 to 44 pl./.44 Mag and .45 Colt they are welcome friends in lonely mountainous places, and some dark alleys too. They are also fun.

Are revolvers outdated for self defense? Nope and only the uninformed would say so. Are they an old design? Sure, updated in many guns to be sure but still basically old.

Keep in mind that all semi automatics sold today are largely based on 100 year old designs. Either blow back or recoil operated. A few gas operated ones and rotating barrels tossed in. Some changes made to the triggers and all, alloys and plastics added to the frames, etc. But all in all George Lugar, Paul Mauser, John Browning, the Walther Bros. could sit at a table with a XD, a Glock, a Berretta and say "How far our little guns have come and still they are ours" and they'd be right.

tipoc

MM60
December 9, 2009, 04:52 PM
They both have the advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is ALWAYS the right answer.

That's true. Revolvers and semi-autos are both well suited for certain purposes.

Revolvers are capable of being made to fire more powerful cartridges than semi-autos. Revolvers are also more easily equipped with longer barrels for increased power, and the longer barrels will provide longer sight-radius's than are normally found on semi-autos. These characteristics - power and range - make revolvers well suited for hunting and defense against medium to large sized animals. I frequently carry a Ruger GP-100 in the mountains; where I am more concerned about a dangerous animal encounter than a dangerous human encounter.

Semi-automatics are capable of being made to contain more cartridges than revolvers. Semi-automatics are easier and faster to reload than revolvers (with or without a speedloader). I frequently carry a Sig P226, Sig P239, or Ruger LCP around town; where I am more concerned about a dangerous human encounter than a dangerous animal encounter.

No matter how you look at things, a semi-automatic is always more convenient/comfortable to carry than a revolver. Whenever you carry a revolver, you will be able to take only 5 to 7 shots (for most models) prior to having to reload. If you carry no spare cartridges, you only get 5 to 7 shots total. If you carry spare cartridges, you have to either carry them loose or in a speed loader. Loose cartridges will probably need to be carried in some sort of case, and will require one-at-a-time reloading into the revolver. A revolver and a case of cartridges will take up the same amount of space as a semi-auto and a magazine, but (probably) still provide fewer shots, and definitely would be slower to reload. A speedloader full of spare cartridges would also probably be best carried in some sort of case, but it could be carried loose. A revolver and a speedloader will take up at least as much space as a semi-auto and a magazine, but (probably) provide fewer shots, and would be slightly slower to reload. A speed loader also presents the problem of an odd/bulky/somewhat-delicate object constantly being carried on oneself. Regardless of these shortcomings in reloading speed, more-powerful revolvers (I'd say .357 magnum and up) are well suited for use against creatures that will not be shooting back at you. When considering creatures that may shoot back - especially groups of them - it would be wise to carry as much ammunition as possible, and have a fast method of reloading. I would suggest that less-powerful revolvers (.38 special and down) have no advantages over quality semi-autos or more powerful revolvers using decent ammunition. Less-powerful revolvers will either be out-gunned by the capacity and quick reloadability of semi-autos or by the power and range of more-powerful revolvers. Small-caliber/small-frame revolvers basically combine the worst of both worlds.

Tipoc writes to me:
A new shooter such as yourself is not showing them anything here.
This also cracks me up - "A new shooter". Right. See posts #50 and #53 here:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836
If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?

tipoc
December 9, 2009, 05:45 PM
If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?

When they cease acting like one. Usually comes through experience rather than class room training or reading. Your opinions show all the hallmarks of the latter.

In the post above you continue to sidestep the question. You stated that revolvers are such an old design that only those lacking common sense would use them for personal defense.

You disregarded the personal skill levels of the individual who chooses a revolver, moon clips, speed loaders, speed strips, upgrades in revolver design and strength, available calibers, 7 and 8 shot wheelguns, etc. Your opinion weighs to the technology (hardware) rather than the shooter (the software). It is most often the latter in the workaday world that are the determining factor in surviving a shootout. Jerry Miculek with a revolver or Paris Hilton with a Glock. Experienced folks know the difference and would place their bets accordingly.

You have backed off of that some now by stating that they can be useful in the wild places for 4 legged threats. Many thousands of wheelgunners will be grateful to you.

Continuing to repeat the well known advantages of semis (speed of reload and capacity) sidesteps the question you raised (old design, lack of common sense, etc.). You also up the ante some by stating that if a fella faces multiple armed attackers (4,5,7 or more) that they would be better armed with a semi than a revolver. I hope running away real fast is also an option. To artificially reinforce your point you must leave the everyday world of a fella going to work in the morning and stopping by the store after work then home and enter the realm of the statistically rare pitched gun battle with armed multiple foes.

Problem is you did not ask what battlefield combat sidearm folks would choose, instead you asked what handgun they would carry for personal defense. Two different questions. In the real world a revolver is a viable option for many, old as they are.

Sigs, HKs, etc are upgrades of a 100 year old design as well.

tipoc

Gryffydd
December 9, 2009, 05:58 PM
MM60, I think your problem is that your opinions, and especially the way your choose to communicate your opinions are absolutely indistinguishable from your typical mall ninja. Some of your posts sound like they were ghostwritten by Gecko 45. Claiming to be an Ex-SEAL hurts your case more than it helps.

I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you why basically no one here agrees with you, and why everyone is so ready to discount your opinion. You may actually be an Ex-SEAL, but it doesn't change the fact that you sound like someone who learned 95% of what they know about guns from video games and movies. Someone with a large airsoft collection, for example. Someone in search of a trauma plate to duct tape on their back that's capable of stopping a .338 Lapua ;)

Once again, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just telling you what I see in my head as I read your posts.

bigred0383
December 9, 2009, 06:29 PM
As faultless as my Beretta 92FS has been, I said Ruger, for the GP100. Tough as nails, versatile, safe, and with a little love...smoooooth.

.38 Special +P for Defense, .357 Magnum for hunting, .38 Shotshell for critters.

I would have a tough time choosing between a 3" with fixed sights, or a 4" with target sights.

Now if you said one gun only, period (handgun, rifle, shotgun), it would be a 12ga, no question.

MM60
December 9, 2009, 06:30 PM
Tipoc:
Problem is you did not ask what battlefield combat sidearm folks would choose, instead you asked what handgun they would carry for personal defense. Two different questions.

That is not at all what happened. You and Gryffydd carried one of my posts from a different thread (post #31 here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489640&highlight=sister) over to this one and quoted one line from it out of context, and now you are stating that I asked a question about it here when I never did any such thing.

Also, I also didn't write that revolvers are too old of a design to use for personal defense. I stated many legitimate reasons why revolvers are less practical than semi-autos for personal defense against other armed humans.

Gryffydd,
I was under the impression that the term "mall ninja" refers to the private security guards that work at shopping centers, and I am not familiar with how they might portray themselves in an online forum. I also don't know who Gecko 45 is.

I actually am a former SEAL, and I'm not going to post any information about myself that's more personal than the documents that I already posted. I am typically logical and practical, simply by default, about everything I do. I have no airsoft guns nor do I desire to own any. I choose all of my firearms for specific purposes for which I find they are best suited - not because of appearances or history behind the guns. I don't have any problem with recommending to others firearms that I don't personally own, but I do have a problem with people automatically recommending a 1911, or a BHP, or a .38 revolver to everybody who asks for help making a choice. Certain guns are best for certain tasks. I would never say that the three I just mentioned are the worst choice for any task, but I would say that they are certainly not the best for any task I can think of.

I have provided lots of factual and accurate information in my previous posts to support my positions. I would love to see other members of THR base their statements on fact and logic; being objective, rather than on sentiment and opinion - which are entirely subjective. You simply cannot make any valid argument based solely upon your feelings, and you shouldn't take people's statements out of context - those are things that the anti-gunners and other liberals do. Let's leave that to them.

wesessiah
December 9, 2009, 06:44 PM
how often is more than about 6 shots needed in a personal defense scenario? most females (pertaining to the discussion above) aren't in many gang wars with 20+ shots needing to be easily accessible. the simplicity of a revolver is a big plus for a lot of people, and unlike magazine/ramp related feeding problems, possible stovepiping, fte, or whatever that would take time to clear, about all that would be encountered with a revolver is ftf (fire) in which you just pull the trigger again.

MM60
December 9, 2009, 06:55 PM
Wesessiah,
A revolver would probably be fine to use in a single-aggressor attack, or even in some multiple-aggressor attacks, but I would think it best to be prepared for the worst, and to me that means having the ability to quickly fire as many shots in succession as possbile - as well as having the ability to place them all accurately. Anybody who has a good working knowledge of their firearm (which should be everyone who has a firearm) shouldn't be overly concerned about what to do in the case of a FTF.

CombatArmsUSAF
December 9, 2009, 08:55 PM
MM60- Here is one reason that most of us could care less about what certificates you post and whatever job you say you've held in the past.

I know alot of SF guys, a few SEALS thrown in to, and you know what they all have in common? I've not met one guy that even talks about what he does for a living, or did for a living in the past. Let alone advertising it on some internet forum trying to prove themsleves some kind of authority.

Plain and simple-Your statements have demonstrated your level of knowledge and experience with firearms, and to be honest if you are indeed a SEAL, They just lost a couple of points in my book when it comes to their firearms knowledge.

MM60
December 9, 2009, 09:16 PM
Why should I not talk about it? I haven't provided any identifying information, or any sensitive information, or discussed or shown anything distasteful or inappropriate. All I did was provide my graduation certificates and some genuine and unclassified documents (with all dates and names blacked out) to prove that I actually do have an extensive background in firearms - because apparently on THR you're considered to be a "new shooter" until you worship the 1911 (which I actually have owned, shot, and carried, and sold because it was impractical for the several reasons I mentioned in previous posts). I'm not trying to wave my SpecWar status in your face - I just thought it might show that I really may have a clue about the points I've been making - but obviously nothing of the sort matters to a bunch of old men who are stuck in their ways.

doc2rn
December 9, 2009, 09:34 PM
Colt Mustang in .380

wesessiah
December 9, 2009, 10:23 PM
A revolver would probably be fine to use in a single-aggressor attack, or even in some multiple-aggressor attacks, but I would think it best to be prepared for the worst, and to me that means having the ability to quickly fire as many shots in succession as possbile - as well as having the ability to place them all accurately. Anybody who has a good working knowledge of their firearm (which should be everyone who has a firearm) shouldn't be overly concerned about what to do in the case of a FTF. i really don't disagree with this post, and you're reasoning is why i carry 14 rounds of 9mm jhp, instead of substantially less in say a .40... if i carried a full sized gun it would be a different story... though i still say that in most scenarios for any given woman/inexperienced person, 6 shots of 38+p (or something of the like) out of a short barreled wheel gun should be sufficient

IdahoLT1
December 9, 2009, 11:11 PM
I have provided lots of factual and accurate information in my previous posts to support my positions. I would love to see other members of THR base their statements on fact and logic; being objective, rather than on sentiment and opinion - which are entirely subjective. You simply cannot make any valid argument based solely upon your feelings, and you shouldn't take people's statements out of context - those are things that the anti-gunners and other liberals do. Let's leave that to them.

This is from your first post on your other thread:

Kahr was the most popular after Glock, 1911's, and the LCP? I had not even heard of Kahr until I joined THR. I looked at the Kahr website, and the company seems to be similar to Kel-Tec; they began as a CNC machine shop and produced other goods long before they made firearms. I do not doubt their quality, but it seems that Kahr pistols all use single-stack mags with somewhat low capacity compared to other single-stack semi-autos. They sell in the intermediate price range ($450 to $700), which doesn't seem that great since most other mid-quality semi-autos from more established manufacturers sell for the same price. Also, I know Kahr's are made in USA, but I would not want to carry a gun that sounds like it comes from Iran.


I find it funny because youre now ranting and raving about how people shouldnt be basing their arguements on their feelings, yet thats all you have done for the last 2 threads. Youve bashed numerous gun manufacturers throughout your 2 threads with little to no relevant facts on why they arent superior. So lets disect the quote from above. You dont think Kahrs are good because:

1)you think they are similar to Kel-tec in that they werent originally a firearms manufacturer.
2)the capacity of their firearms is low compared to other single stack pistols.
3)they are mid-range priced, but isnt a deal since more established manufacturers sell pistols in the same range.
4)the name sounds like its from Iran

In response to:

1)So what if they werent originally a firearms manufacturer. One of the most prolofic/recognizable "modern" machine guns was made by General Electric. Kahr arms uses modern, high quality equipment. As good as John Browning was, the shop he designed the BAR, 1911, Auto-5 and BMG was the size of an average living room. Whats next? Youre gonna start discrediting Dan Wesson firearms too? Youre statement might be a "fact" but its irrelevant in modern firearm manufacturing.

2)This is a fact, but youre purposely neglecting to mention the size of the firearms themselves. The Sig 220 has a standard 8+1 capacity and is 5.5" tall. The Kahr CW45 has a standard 6+1 capacity and is 4.8" tall. Do you see your failed "logic"? Of course the shorter gun will carry less ammo than the taller gun. Kahr makes conceal carry semi auto pistols and that is it. They started manufacturing firearms at the beginning of the '94 AWB and marketed towards people wanting a concealable firearm because the capactiy was limited to 10 rounds.

3)This statement is nothing but opinion. No fact whatsoever.

4)This is also just your opinion.



In the four links provided, I did not find CZ's to be in use by any U.S. police force, government agency, or military unit. They are listed as in use by police forces in Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia. If you read through all four of CZ Forum's lists, you will see that Glock's, H&K's, and Sig's are in widespread government use around the world. The Beretta 92 and various S&W models are also fairly common, but as I stated previously - I find these two to be lesser companies than the aforementioned three. CZ may produce quality firearms, but I see nothing particularly special about them, and there are better choices. Also, according to CZ Forum's lists, 1911's are about as common as CZ's in military and law enforcement anymore, and after 100 years - there are obviously better choices.



You even bash Beretta in your first thread. You seem to forget that Beretta has been making high quality firearms for almost 500 years. Some of their shotguns and rifles are more expensive than most engineers make in a year. You discredit the Beretta M9 even though it beat out the SIG 226 and the H&K P9S and VP70 in the XM trials in the 80's proving on multiple occassions to be the same quality, just w/out the hefty price tag.

weisse52
December 9, 2009, 11:15 PM
This also cracks me up - "A new shooter". Right. See posts #50 and #53 here:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836
If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?


Show me your DD214, and prove it is yours, (the long version of course) and then I may believe. You do have a DD214, don't you? And just what rate where you anyway?

Your documents mean nothing posted on the Internet. I can prove I was the Chief Master Petty Office of the Navy if you want me to. Or at least I can in the same way you have...

I knew some Vietnam era Seals, You do not sound or act like any Seal I have every met. You may be one, but your posts show do not support your words.

wesessiah
December 10, 2009, 12:08 AM
idaho, something else to add; sig originally made horse drawn carts or something to that effect :D

MM60
December 10, 2009, 02:32 AM
IdahoLT1,
In your post #119 you made all of my statements about Kahr firearms out to be malicious attacks upon the company, whereas in reality - I was just stating the facts.

The last line in my paragraph that you quoted actually is my own opinion, and I clearly stated that "I know Kahr's are made in USA, but I would not want to carry a gun that sounds like it comes from Iran." It turns out that I was wrong here; I should have said Korea - and now I will attack the company...

Here is some more information about the Kahr company (as found on Wikipedia) that you all may not have known:
Kahr Arms:
Kahr Arms is an American small arms manufacturer founded by Kook Jin "Justin" Moon (son of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon), who currently serves as CEO and President. It is owned by the Saeilo Corporation (pronounced say-low), a subsidiary of the Unification Church International holding company.

Sun Myung Moon:
Sun Myung Moon (born January 6, 1920) is the Korean founder and leader of the worldwide Unification Church. He is also the founder of many other organizations and projects involved in political, cultural, artistic, mass-media, educational, public service, and other activities. One of the best-known of these is the conservative Washington Times newspaper. He is famous for holding blessing ceremonies, often referred to as "mass weddings".
Moon has said, and it is believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. He has been among the most controversial modern religious leaders, both for his religious beliefs and for his social and political activism.
In 2004, at a March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in Washington D.C. Moon crowned himself with what was called the "Crown of Peace." United States Representative Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) carried a pillow holding the ornate crown which Moon "snatched up". Other law makers who attended included Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) , as well as former Representative Walter Fauntroy (D-D.C.). Key organizers of the event included George Stallings, controversial former Roman Catholic priest who had been married by Moon, and Michael Jenkins, the president of the American Unification Church at that time.

Moon delivered a long speech in which he stated that he was:
"sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people.... Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
On June 27, 2004 the New York Times editorial board criticized the ceremony and the participation of congressional members. The Associated Press reported that "Many of the congressional members in attendance have said they felt misled into making an appearance that later was used to promote Moon's Unification Church." Some stated that they didn't expect a coronation but thought the awards dinner was only to honor activists from their home states as Ambassadors for Peace.

Critics contrast Moon's "opulent" personal lifestyle with that of church members who are asked to sacrifice both in their careers and in donating most of what little they have. The Moon family situation is described as one of "luxury and privilege" and as "lavish".
Home for the True Family was a guarded 18-acre (73,000 m2) mini-castle in Irvington, New York, a tiny suburb located along a sweep of the Hudson River. Named East Garden, after Eden, the estate included two smaller houses and a three-story brick mansion with 12 bedrooms, seven baths, a bowling alley, and a dining room equipped with a waterfall and pond. There were other castles and mansions too — in South Korea, Germany, Scotland, England — and few expenses were spared. The children had tutors from Japan, purebred horses, motorbikes, sports cars, and first-class vacations with blank-check spending. "The kids got whatever they wanted," says Donna Collins, who grew up in the church. "At one point, the Moon kids were each getting $40,000 or $50,000 a month for allowance. They had wads of cash. I remember once in London where [one of Justin’s sisters] spent like $2,000 a day; I saw a drawer filled with Rolexes and diamonds."
Moon owns or sponsors major business enterprises, including The Washington Times, the United Press International, and Pyeonghwa Motors. A small sampling of other operations include computers and religious icons in Japan, seafood in Alaska, weapons and ginseng in Korea, huge tracts of land in South America, a recording studio and travel agency in Manhattan, a horse farm in Texas and a golf course in California.
In a 1992 letter to The New York Times, author Richard Quebedeaux, who had taken part in several Unification Church projects, criticized Moon's financial judgement by saying, "Mr. Moon may well be a good religious leader with high ideals, but he has also shown himself to be a poor businessman."

Here's a link to a video that shows the coronation ceremony in Washington D.C.
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v6528297a9ppTgRm

So, if you're a Christian and/or an American Patriot, or simply an ethics-minded person, perhaps you will reconsider supporting the Kahr company with your business now that you see what kind of people are running the show there. No company is perfect, but after doing some research - Kahr represents to me something far more sinister and disturbing than the low-cap magazines and relatively high prices of their pistols.

On a different topic, I'm not posting my DD-214 on the internet. I might as well just give you my name, address, social security number, and all the rest of my personal information and let you all do a full background check on me or stop by my house to visit in person. Or I could black out all personal information on my DD-214 and post it that way, but you would just say I made that up like all my other authentic documents. Also, I don't know what you're referring to when you say "the long version". My DD-214 is one page long, unless it came with other papers that are not the actual form itself - which I didn't keep with it. I do have a box with a stack of BUPERS orders 4 to 5 inches thick, but I'm not posting those online either. I can tell you I got issued a green military ID when most bases were issuing the new white ones with the chip imbedded in them. I can tell you that I've swam from Little Creek NAB to the beach west of the Lesner Bridge and back. I've also swam from the Coronado amphib. base to Imperial Beach. I shot the Mk-43(M-60) in the mountains at Camp Pendleton during rifle training in BUD/S Phase III. I've successfully navigated a long series of obstacles and points on closed-circut at night in Virginia using an Attack Board and making calculations in time, distance, and bearing along the way. You can go ahead and say I'm making it up, but I'm really not. There are about 2,000 SEALs in active duty at any given time, and about ten times that many who have been discharged and are still living. Is it really that hard for you to believe that one of them is writing on THR? We're rare, but not that rare.

wesessiah
December 10, 2009, 04:19 AM
^ so maybe family guy was right about jesus and moses using guns to conquer the romans... God forgive me, just a joke.

tipoc
December 10, 2009, 09:08 AM
MM60,

Actually when I quoted you it was from post #50 of this thread. I have quoted you only from this thread.

The only reason that folks here have mentioned your credentials is because you raised them. In another thread when folks debated your statement of your opinions (rather the manner you stated them in) you raised your background to buttress your opinions. You've done it again in this thread. You said in effect that doubting or debating you was tantamount to doubting the SEALS and other organizations and training. You used them as a shield.

Polls, even when they don't make alot of sense are often fun. You made this poll about you and your opinions. Personally I don't want to appear to be bashing you. I don't disagree with all you say. I do disagree with how you say it. At one time or another we are all inexperienced and new to something or the other.

When I fella says: "Personally I think there are better choices for self defense than a revolver a 1911 or a BHP" I'll listen and discuss. When a fella says: "The 1911 and the revolver are old antiquated designs unsuitable for personal defense and those that use them lack common sense" (all things you said) I think the speaker does not know what they are talking about.

On Kahr:
In the thread you have referenced you state that till you joined THR you had never heard of Kahr firearms. This means you had never personally shot or handled one or read a single report on any of their guns that you recalled. Yet you had strong opinions of their guns and the quality of them. This is a mark of someone lacking in experience and judgement. The experienced person would say; "Tell me about Kahr firearms. I'm ignorant of them."

I knew years back about Justin Moon's daddy (who, by the way, considers himself and his church to be Christian). John Browning was a Morman. The Catholic Church and some Baptists don't consider Mormans Christian so I understand it. I don't care about that when it comes to guns. I did not buy Justin Moon or his daddy. I did buy a Kahr to try one out for myself. I also shot several others over the years. That's another thread.

tipoc

Loyalist Dave
December 10, 2009, 09:18 AM
IF the choice is one and only one, and the starting premis was all the accessories, but didn't mention maintenance..., so I am going with little to no maintenance available...,

I'd choose a S&W Model 13 in a 3" barrel, but a 4" barrel would also be fine. Very little to break. Holds six shots of a very potent round, the premis would allow me speed loaders, and for CCW I prefer a 3" to the 4" but I could make do. NOT my favorite, but I would be far from naked.

LD

tipoc
December 10, 2009, 10:12 AM
Also, I also didn't write that revolvers are too old of a design to use for personal defense. I stated many legitimate reasons why revolvers are less practical than semi-autos for personal defense against other armed humans.

It's terrible when a reasonable fella is misunderstood and persecuted for his beliefs ain't it? Just tragic.

From post 50 of this thread;

I am not implying that anything besides Sig and H&K are junk. I am implying that 1911's are outdated...

The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

In the above quote I took it to read that you are saying that those who choose a 1911 or a revolver for personal defense are using an outdated design and lack common sense. Or at best, lack common sense and so refuse to acknowledge that they carry antiquated guns. Perhaps they made the wrong choice because they are fanboys" and "old men".

...I actually do have an extensive background in firearms - because apparently on THR you're considered to be a "new shooter" until you worship the 1911 (which I actually have owned, shot, and carried, and sold because it was impractical for the several reasons I mentioned in previous posts). I'm not trying to wave my SpecWar status in your face - I just thought it might show that I really may have a clue about the points I've been making - but obviously nothing of the sort matters to a bunch of old men who are stuck in their ways.

You can't seem to stop waving your bona fides in our faces. Unfortunately we all so old we can't read the tiny print.:)

You do not have to like 1911s or Glocks to be here or any forum on the internet. You can denounce either all day if you like. But it does help if you don't insult folks intelligence while you do so. It also helps when you say "this is my opinion" and try to convince folks of it. It don't help when you say "I'm an expert you are wrong and lack common sense." Experts are experts because they have expertise not because they say they are.

You've made a fun poll about you. Too bad.

tipoc

MM60
December 10, 2009, 10:50 AM
Tipoc,
When I fella says: "Personally I think there are better choices for self defense than a revolver a 1911 or a BHP" I'll listen and discuss. When a fella says: "The 1911 and the revolver are old antiquated designs unsuitable for personal defense and those that use them lack common sense" (all things you said) I think the speaker does not know what they are talking about.
I did not say that the 1911 and revolver are unsuitable for SD. You can defend yourself with a Mauser C96 or a sword if you want to. I just said that the 1911 and the revolver are outdated designs because there are better choices available now for CC/SD. Obviously, either a 1911 or a revolver will put a hole in a badguy. I'm not debating that. The thing is, I have asked over and over again for fans of the 1911 to provide some factual and logical reasons as to why they choose the 1911 over more-modern semi-autos, and instead of giving me any factual or logical reasons - they ridicule me for asking, take my statements out of context, say that I said things that I didn't say, write that I'm a "new and inexperienced shooter", and do whatever else they can do to steer everybody away from the fact that they have no facts or logic to support their carry choice. Also, as I've already reiterated, I have not been going out of my way to make the same point regarding revolver carry only because those who favor a revolver aren't usually over-zealous about it like the 1911 fans are, but if people are going to hassle me about my revolver statement from the other thread (titled: "help, my sister wants to get a .25acp") - I'm going to ask them for facts and logic as well. I asked my wife, and she said she didn't want to have anything to do with revolvers. She shoots a Ruger LCP very well. Her best friend has shot before and also wants to get a semi-auto. Obviously, revolvers are not necessarily the best choice to recommend for women; anybody who thinks so is basically assuming that women can't learn how manipulate the controls on a handgun other than to pull the trigger until it goes "click" instead of "boom".

In the thread you have referenced you state that till you joined THR you had never heard of Kahr firearms. This means you had never personally shot or handled one or read a single report on any of their guns that you recalled. Yet you had strong opinions of their guns and the quality of them. This is a mark of someone lacking in experience and judgement. The experienced person would say; "Tell me about Kahr firearms. I'm ignorant of them."
After I saw many people on THR writing about Kahr Arms, I went to the Kahr website and read all about their company and their pistols. I read the specifications for many of their models. I also looked at up-close photos of them on Google images. From what I see, the quality of the Kahr pistols appears similar to the quality of the firearms produced by Kel-Tec. I think that Kel-Tec makes very practical and innovative firearms that will function fine, but the quality in workmanship is not the best. On both the Kahr and the Kel-Tec, I see similar plastic with similar molding marks. On both pistols I see pins that could be aligned or sized better. The Kahr seems to be made with more metal parts than the Kel-Tec. The Kel-Tec seems to have a better-designed slide release lever than the Kahr (the Kahr's seems to protrude unnecessarily). After reading many people's posts about the Kahrs they own, reading the company's information on their own website, and comparing high-resolution photos of the Kahr to other firearms, why should I ask for additional information from more THR members before stating my observations?

I knew years back about Justin Moon's daddy (who, by the way, considers himself and his church to be Christian). John Browning was a Morman. The Catholic Church and some Baptists don't consider Mormans Christian so I understand it. I don't care about that when it comes to guns. I did not buy Justin Moon or his daddy. I did buy a Kahr to try one out for myself. I also shot several others over the years. That's another thread.
The Unification Church, Mormonism, and Catholicism are all para-Christian cults that add to and/or misinterpret the Bible to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. I am not suggesting that they misinterpret little irrelevant things - they make outlandish mistakes that change the meanings of all sorts of fundamental Christian beliefs. You may not have bought Justin Moon or his father, but you did support them by buying their products. It's not good.

You do not have to like 1911s or Glocks to be here or any forum on the internet. You can denounce either all day if you like. But it does help if you don't insult folks intelligence while you do so.
I have repeatedly stated that I think Glocks are high-quality firearms and I've recommended them even though I've also said that I don't personally care for the design, so I don't know where you're coming from with that. I have not denounced Glocks - I simply stated that it is my opinion that I don't care much for the design. You should consider it an insult to your own intelligence that you continue to suggest that I said things that I didn't say.

content
December 10, 2009, 10:50 AM
///////////////////

MM60
December 10, 2009, 11:16 AM
Tipoc,
Ok, I think I see the problem here. You seem to be getting the idea that I'm suggesting 1911's and revolvers are too old of a design to be used for self defense anymore, when what I'm really suggesting is only that better choices for concealed carry/self defense have been produced in the time that 1911's and revolvers have been around. When I say that 1911's and revolvers are outdated - I'm certainly not saying that they're completely useless or that they wouldn't be effective manstoppers. I'm simply stating that, for CC on a daily basis, it would be more logical to carry a lighter handgun with a higher capacity now that such guns are available. I don't always or even usually believe that something new is automatically better than something that is old, but in the case of 1911's and revolvers - compared to most newer semi-autos - I think that it is true, and I have yet to hear any factual or logical reasons to the contrary.

I hope this makes more sense to everybody.

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 11:33 AM
The thing is, I have asked over and over again for fans of the 1911 to provide some factual and logical reasons as to why they choose the 1911 over more-modern semi-autos, and instead of giving me any factual or logical reasons
I actually answered this one, but you ignored my question to you on the topic. To reiterate, I chose the 1911 because it could do everything I needed a pistol to do. It is accurate, reliable, has excellent ergonomics, an excellent trigger, and looks classy as a bonus feature. You keep talking about superior modern designs, but without defining them. Just because you think they're better and more modern does not make them better or more suited to my use. As I said before the 1911 WORKS. I'm perfectly comfortable with 8+1 capacity and another 8 on my belt. If I ever need more than that it'll be because I did something stupid like stand and fight instead of exercising Nike Jujitsu when I should have. Most of these new features you love so much were actually made specifically for people who don't want to learn how to use a handgun properly. Extra capacity, DA/SA & Decockers, magazine disconnects... I have yet to actually see you say what about the 1911 is outdated. You keep repeating "It's outdated because there are newer and better designs availble" Well, what are they? What features do they have that make them objectively and unquestionably better firearms than the 1911? Let's get down to the details here.

The Unification Church, Mormonism, and Catholicism are all para-Christian cults that add to and/or misinterpret the Bible to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. I am not suggesting that they misinterpret little irrelevant things - they make outlandish mistakes that change the meanings of all sorts of fundamental Christian beliefs. You may not have bought Justin Moon or his father, but you did support them by buying their products. It's not good.
And HK's founders came from Mauser, and Nazis used Mausers!

OH, and P.S. SIG started out making wagons and HK started out making sowing machines, so you I wouldn't let that scare you away from Kahrs.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 12:03 PM
And HK's founders came from Mauser, and Nazis used Mausers!

OH, and P.S. SIG started out making wagons and HK started out making sowing machines, so you I wouldn't let that scare you away from Kahrs.

The Nazis may have used Mausers, but if Mauser was currently owned by the Nazis and all purchases from the company went to support the Third Reich, would you buy one? There's a difference between "Nazis used Mausers" and "Nazis own Mauser and increase in wealth and power because of your purchases." I was only using Kahr's beginning as a machine shop as a similarity between them and Kel-Tec; I did not say there is anything wrong with that.

The features of the 1911 that make it an inferior design to more modern pistols are as follows:
-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)
-manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)
-all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)
-single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide

More modern pistols usually have the following better features than the 1911:
-options include SA/DA, DAO, striker fired (none require use of a manual safety)
-safety lever either not mandatory for safe loaded carry or not present on firearm at all
-designs frequently use polymer, aluminum, and alloys to be strong and light-weight
-double-stack magazines provide higher capacity, some use single-stacks to be thinner
-takedown is usually accomplished with no tools and in very few steps

Regardless of whether you use actual hand-tools or parts of the 1911 itself during disassembly, you are still using whatever you are using as a tool for takedown, and the takedown procedure will be more complicated than it would be for a non-1911.

As you stated, the 1911 design does work, and you find it comfortable to carry and classy-looking. Anybody could argue that their favorite pistol works, is comfortable to carry, accurate, reliable, has excellent ergonomics, and has an excellent trigger; not to say the 1911 doesn't, but many other pistols do as well. Other than the fact that the 1911 does work, those are all more or less subjective statements. I provided objective statements in the two lists above. Would you be able to debate my objective comparison between the 1911 and more modern pistols that posess the characteristics I listed?

waterhouse
December 10, 2009, 12:25 PM
The features of the 1911 that make it an inferior design to more modern pistols are as follows:
-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)
-manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)
-all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)
-single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide

I think a point you are missing is that the things immediately after the dash are facts (well, some of them are) and the things you put in the parenthesis are your interpretations of those facts.

For example, my list might go:

-SAO (I prefer only one type of trigger pull, and the 1911 has one of the best feeling triggers of any handgun)
-manual safety (this is a handy place for me to rest my thumb. I sure wish every gun had a safety so perfectly placed!)
-all-steel design (Although I own some very light weight 1911s due to advances in metallurgical science and this statement clearly doesn't apply to all 1911s, I like how the all steel ones stay on target and smoothly transition to the next target. It sure is nice to have some weight taking up that recoil!)
-single-stack magazine (which made the grip oh so comfortable for me. Having tried out the grips on literally hundreds of handguns, I prefer single stack, thin framed guns. Also, the thinness makes it easier to conceal!)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide (not with a short recoil spring guide it isn't, unless you are talking about things like a brain and opposable thumbs as tools.)

Once again, I don't normally carry a 1911, I just own several and have a different understanding of them than you do. (note that I'm not saying I'm right, but we that we looked at the same design and came to different conclusions.) You prefer having 2 different trigger pulls. I've tried that and don't prefer it. And I don't mean I looked at pictures on google images, I actually handle pistols every single day and based my decision on how the guns actually felt in my hand, how the triggers felt, etc. Your preference is, to me, not an improvement in the design. When gun writers talk about great triggers in gun magazines, they say things like "Gun X's trigger is almost 1911 like!" DA/SA guns are fine, and they work, but the design is not better, merely different.

I normally carry an HK. Before you jump for joy that I'm carrying a super advanced, better than 1911 gun, my HK is a low capacity, single stack, all steel, heavy, manual safety, SAO (basically) 9mm. It even has a tool available to assist in take down!, although the tool isn't necessary if you are adept at using your thumb. I only bring up the point to emphasize that you can't just say "HKs and SIGs are more advanced than 1911s." Sig makes 1911s now. HK makes (made, and still seems to do limited addition runs every now and then) all steel single stack guns.

And to the training issue, a good friend of mine was (is? I don't know if Navy guys go by the "once a Marine . . . " concept, because he doesn't talk about it much.) a SEAL. Even after getting similar training, he now carries an outdated single stack 1911.

Zach S
December 10, 2009, 12:35 PM
Regardless of whether you use actual hand-tools or parts of the 1911 itself during disassembly, you are still using whatever you are using as a tool for takedown, and the takedown procedure will be more complicated than it would be for a non-1911.
Just to clarify, I said detail strip, not field strip, which doesn't require any tools...

I'm pretty sure you're going to need tools to detail strip any autoloader more complicated, um, I mean, more advanced than a 1911...

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 12:39 PM
-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)
What's wrong with having a hammer cocked?
The SAO design gives a trigger that is the same for every shot, including the all-important first shot. It has a short reset, and a light pull.
manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)
I would say a manual safety--as long as it can be manipulated without sacrificing a good firing grip--is preferable to having to train to accurately shoot double taps with a drastically different trigger between shots.
all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)
There are plenty of aluminum framed 1911s. The difference in weight is marginal. The Springfield Armory full-size lightweight model is 33oz. The Sig P226 is 34. Oh and weight really helps with recoil and followup shots.
single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)
With which you get better ergonomics, magazines that are easier to conceal and carry and load. Oh, and you can get double stack 1911s too.
tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide
Not on any 1911 I've ever owned (or would own). I'm sure there's somebody with something like that in their 1911 out there, but it's sure not a trait of the design.

On to the modern advantages...
options include SA/DA, DAO, striker fired (none require use of a manual safety)
Options are always good. Doesn't make them better. I've already addressed the problems with DA/SA. DAO is better, but still doesn't provide the quality of trigger that SAO does. Striker fired...what's the advantage there again?
safety lever either not mandatory for safe loaded carry or not present on firearm at all
Also, safety not there in case you did want one for some reason. They can be rather nice. Also, the 1911 safety can be easily flicked off during the draw and this can be done with a firing grip. Better than dealing with 2 different trigger pulls.
designs frequently use polymer, aluminum, and alloys to be strong and light-weight
So do 1911s...
double-stack magazines provide higher capacity, some use single-stacks to be thinner
I guess you've already covered this one!
takedown is usually accomplished with no tools and in very few steps
Takedown? What's that? Field Strip? Then that could be said of the 1911 as well. No tools, simple. Detail strip? Try that on any gun without tools.

I think it's funny that you ignore all the possible features of 1911s like lightweight models, double stack models, DAO models, etc. but you pull out this weird tool removal of the recoil spring guide thing. We need to either include all 1911s in the discussion or limit it to WWII GI models or something, because you're just cherry picking what features you want to talk about.

You're welcome to *prefer* all those new features. Just don't pretend they're objectively *better* for everyone.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 12:40 PM
-SAO (I prefer only one type of trigger pull, and the 1911 has one of the best feeling triggers of any handgun)
That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.

-manual safety (this is a handy place for me to rest my thumb. I sure wish every gun had a safety so perfectly placed!)
When you say "to rest my thumb", do you mean while you are actually shooting the gun? Or when you are pressing the lever? I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

-all-steel design (Although I own some very light weight 1911s due to advanced in metallurgical science and this statement clearly doesn't apply to all 1911s, I like how the all steel ones stay on target and smoothly transition to the next target. It sure is nice to have some weight taking up that recoil!)
Some may see this as a benefit in regards to a pistol that will be used regularly for target shooting purposes, but I would imagine that a lighter pistol would be better suited for daily carry. Like I said before - you're going to carry your CCW all day every day, you're not going to engage badguys with it all day every day. Unless you plan on doing more target shooting than carrying, a lighter handgun would be the better choice.

-single-stack magazine (which made the grip oh so comfortable for me. Having tried out the grips on literally hundreds of handguns, I prefer single stack, thin framed guns. Also, the thinness makes it easier to conceal!)
I have found that the removeable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removeable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide (not with a short recoil spring guide it isn't, unless you are talking about things like a brain and opposable thumbs as tools.
I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

waterhouse
December 10, 2009, 12:48 PM
That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.

Yes, I know, I am the user. Picking a gun that agrees with me is a logical, common sense decision, although you seem to think that me shooting a 1911 defies all logic and common sense.

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

You have now. That's exactly where my thumb rests when I shoot 1911s. I've never found a reason to move it, and starts there as I draw. Works for me.

I have found that the removable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

Ah, another beauty of the 1911. Easily changeable grips! Mine wear thin grips, and there is a huge variety of selection. The SIG P series can change grips, but most Glocks and HKs you can't, and are generally stuck to some sort of slip on grip if the gun doesn't fit you from the factory (ETA or with the more recent interchangeable back straps).

I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

Thank you for conceding the point. As originally designed, no tools are necessary.

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 01:03 PM
I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting. :what:
That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.
That's what we've been trying to tell you all along... Does that mean you finally got the idea? :D
but I would imagine that a lighter pistol would be better suited for daily carry
Only if a difference of 5oz is enough to tire you out... Man, I thought SEALs were supposed to be tough! :D
Unless you plan on doing more target shooting than carrying, a lighter handgun would be the better choice.
In your opinion! With a good belt and a good holster I forget my full size all steel 1911 is even on my hip.
I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.
:what: I would say that the VAST MAJORITY of models don't require a tool. In fact, funky recoil spring setups are more commonly found on the compact models. Are you really criticizing a gun you know that little about?

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 01:05 PM
Man, I need to quit getting interrupted while I'm posting. Waterhouse keeps beating me to the punch...

waterhouse
December 10, 2009, 01:13 PM
I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

Just so you don't think I'm an anomaly, here's a guy who knows a bit about pistol shooting, explaining how he gets his thumb on top of the safety (it's at about 1:17 in the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa50-plo48

easyg
December 10, 2009, 01:26 PM
The 1911 is a very good design, which is why it has been around for so long.
And if it's what you're used to shooting then there's really no compelling reason to switch handguns.
Simply put: it works.

The same is true of revolvers...
The double-action revolver is a great design that has stood the test of time.
And for most shooters who are proficient with one, there's really no compelling reason to switch.

Warning: personal opinion to follow!


Until every "baby boomer" on the planet is dead and gone, the revolver and the 1911 will stay near the top of preferred handguns.
And no, I'm not saying that ALL boomers prefer revolvers or 1911's.
And no, I'm not saying that ALL post boomer generations disdain revolvers and 1911's.

But it has been my personal observations at gun shows and gun shops that the baby boomers are by far the largest fan base of revolvers and 1911's.

And while revolvers and 1911's are good designs, I never recommend them for a newbie just learning how to shoot.
I think that the last thing a newbie needs to worry about is learning to master a manual flip safety (1911) or a heavy double-action trigger (revolver).

This is why I recommend to newbies Glocks, XD's, S&W M&P's, and similar handguns....
Handguns without a manual flip safety, or a decocker, or DA first shot/SA follow-up shots....instead, handguns with a consistent trigger-pull from first shot to last shot.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2009, 01:30 PM
The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

Outdated? You can design guns with slide rails molded into polymer frames that cost a whole lot less than a forged and machined 1911, HP, Beretta, or SIG, and you can reduce parts count to reduce cost. Those are the real and undeniable advantages of guns that are not "outdated." It's a matter of priorities; I'm not tying to buy 6000 guns within a budget to equip a police force, I want the best gun. So does the LAPD SWAT team; they carry 1911 pistols.

Heavy? All the better to get back on target rapidly, which can make the difference between life and death in a self defense situation. You can get a lighter 1911 if you want one--the Colt New Agent is very light--but some of us prefer a little more weight.

Low capacity? Therefore thinner.

SAO? Yeah, years ago I thought that was a disadvantage, but many, if not most, people can shoot a single action pistol (1911, Browning HP, SIG 210) with a good trigger better than any DAO or striker fired pistol, and I'm among them; DA/SA pistols have the serious disadvantage of having a very different pull between the first and second shot.

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.That's how instructors tell you to shoot. I don't, because I find it rather painful.

By the way, I do have one of the most popular and modern compact, polymer, striker fired pistols on the market. It cost a little more than half as much as my high-end 1911. When weight really matters or clothing dictates, I'll carry it. However, I can shoot my steel four inch 1911 a lot better, and I guarantee you that when I take a tactical training course next year that requires shooting 600 rounds in two days, I'll take the heavier 1911. A younger friend of mine, less recoil sensitive than I, took a polymer gun and would not do it again, partly because of the pain and partly because of the fact that repeat shots were less effective.

Jonah71
December 10, 2009, 01:30 PM
Just give me a .357 Python and I'll be fine.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 01:36 PM
Only if a difference of 5oz is enough to tire you out... Man, I thought SEALs were supposed to be tough!

There is a difference between having the ability to be tough and being unnecessarily uncomfortable on a daily basis. The SEALs actually tend to carry far more gear with them than you might think. At work, I would typically carry a 75lb+ rucksack, plus H-gear (LBE vest) under my ruck, plus my pistol on a belt under my H-gear. I find all of that to be extremely cumbersome, although much of it is necessary for the job. I like everything about my own Sig P226 other than the fact that the size and weight is not the most comfortable for carry on a daily basis. This is why I usually carry my Ruger LCP around town. I carry the Sig when I feel there is more potential for conflict wherever I may be headed, or when I know I won't be sitting in any sort of seat for long periods of time. Sometimes I carry it anyway. I have had lots of experience with lugging heavy gear around, and although I really like big knives, powerful guns, and cool-guy gear, I find it much more practical to bring the minimum essentials and rely on personal skill in most situations. So, it's really not an issue of toughness - just practicality. If you're interested in toughness, I have gone kayak camping by myself in remote salt-water areas in March when the water and air were both less than 40 degrees, and I actually camped on top of the kayak on the water (that's colder and less comfortable than you might think). On one of these trips, I navigated my kayak back to my vehicle for over 12 miles in the moonless night with no lights. And that was all on my own time - just for fun. Some of the guys went for a mile-long Chesapeake Bay swim in January just to see how fast they could do it. We also swam in Hurricane Isabel, but some Marine Corps. volunteer rescue force guy kicked us out. This winter I hope to go wilderness camping with my buddy who was discharged last year - with only the clothes we're wearing and one knife and firearm each. Tolerance to being cold and wet is a true test of toughness to which most people won't subject themselves. But we find it amusing, and it makes for good stories that other's don't really understand.

easyg
December 10, 2009, 01:40 PM
...I want the best gun. So does the LAPD SWAT team; they carry 1911 pistols.
The notion that the 1911 is "THE BEST GUN" simply because the LAPD SWAT team carries it is total nonsense.

Using that logic:
Since the Secret Service and the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard and the Texas Rangers (and hundreds of other agencies around the world) don't carry the 1911 then they must not want the best?:rolleyes:

Nonsense!

The 1911 might be the best handgun for you.
But it is certainly not the best for everyone.

When I was a soldier we still had the 1911's in our armory, and I have seen plenty of soldiers forget to flip the manual safety off at the range.
Had they been in combat such a mistake could have cost them their lives.

If I'm teaching a novice, give me a handgun without a manual safety!

MM60
December 10, 2009, 01:56 PM
Thank you Easyg. As I stated earlier, the fact that a very small minority of spec-ops guys use a 1911 is irrelevant considering that the vast majority of spec-ops and conventional forces do not. I also agree with your statement that the baby boomers (old men) constitute the vast majority of 1911 and revolver fans, and I believe that this is simply because that's what they grew up with. In the next few decades, it is likely that we will see a major decline in 1911 and revolver popularity.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2009, 03:00 PM
The 1911 might be the best handgun for you.
But it is certainly not the best for everyone.

Good point, easyg. I'm fairly familiar with handguns. I can clear a jam, and I train from a "safety on position". Personally, however, I wouldn't carry a semi auto without a manual safety and I don't like the idea of a novice carrying one either. For those I recommend a revolver unless they're going into combat.

Since the Secret Service and the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard and the Texas Rangers (and hundreds of other agencies around the world) don't carry the 1911 then they must not want the best?

Again, you are right--best for Border Patrolmen and the Coast Guard would not involve concealment and would tend to require higher capacity, hence a double column magazine; same for SOCOM--there's a big difference between a pure civilian SD encounter and survival in a hostile military environment. (Wilson does provide 1911 pistols to Texas Rangers, however).

I started out years ago with the most modern handgun on the market: the Smith and Wesson Model 39. I was enamored with the DA/SA feature and I liked the hammer drop safety, and the idea of having a 1911 "cocked and locked" scared me. High capacity was not an issue for me.

It was OK at the range firing SA, but I got it long before I knew the first thing about concealed carry. I replaced it after forty-three years with a compact high-cap striker fired gun--same trigger pull each time. It does have a safety. The only real disadvantages are the long trigger pull and the light weight.

Some time later, I happened to try a 1911 at the range after a police SWAT team lead showed me his 1911 back up gun. With its improved trigger and better sights it was a far cry from the issue guns that were around when I chose the Model 39. And I've gotten over my aversion to "Condition 1" carry. So I bought one.

I can shoot the 1911 a lot better--more shots on multiple targets more quickly, and more importantly to me, fewer shots that miss and might hit an unintended target.

Again, I was not constrained by a department budget, I do not carry openly, I do not expect to get into armed combat requiring sustained fire, and I am constrained from drawing and doing anything with a slide until I am in imminent danger. The Beretta M9 might otherwise suffice.

I simply need to be able to draw from concealment in a second and a half and get several shots on target(s) with great speed and certainty. I've concluded fairly recently that the 1911, which I personally considered to be outmoded forty-plus years ago, is best for me by a long shot.

When I started shooting handguns, the choices were the Browning Hi Power and .380; Colt Commander and Government Models; the Smith Model 39; the Walther PPK, surplus P-38, Radom and Lahti pistols; and DA revolvers. The choices today are mind boggling. The advent of CCW on a large scale and the need for law enforcement agencies to equip their officers with considerably more firepower has driven the change. Colt double action revolvers are no longer made, and there are numerous large and small semi-autos on the market--along with 1911 pistols from more manufacturers than were in existence in the mid 1960s. The 1911 pistols are inherently costly, and as you have pointed out, they require a little more training than some others, but their effectiveness is not in question unless you need more magazine capacity.

To each his own.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2009, 03:27 PM
But it has been my personal observations at gun shows and gun shops that the baby boomers are by far the largest fan base of revolvers and 1911's.

While I've also noticed a lot of ex servicemen looking at 1911s, some of the guys at my range who carry the very compact 1911 pistols concealed, and all of the policemen I know who carry them for backup, are quite young, and I see more young men and women than older people looking at J-frames.

And while revolvers and 1911's are good designs, I never recommend them for a newbie just learning how to shoot.
Agree on the 1911, but I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.

I think that the last thing a newbie needs to worry about is learning to master a manual flip safety (1911) or a heavy double-action trigger (revolver).

This is why I recommend to newbies Glocks, XD's, S&W M&P's, and similar handguns....
Handguns without a manual flip safety, or a decocker, or DA first shot/SA follow-up shots....instead, handguns with a consistent trigger-pull from first shot to last shot.

The instructors where I shoot recommend revolvers to newbies, but they agree with your recommendations regarding which semi-autos to carry concealed. Oddly, about half of those instructors carry 1911s, but they demonstrate in class with real and dummy Glocks.

I bought an M&P (with a safety) on the strength of such recommendations, but I've since found that I don't really like the long trigger pull very much. I think the long pull design may be a product of litigation.

Regarding the safety, to me it's second nature, just like pulling the trigger, and I've heard too much about Glocks going off in officers' holsters to fully trust anything without one. Personal opinion.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 04:06 PM
Agree on the 1911, but I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.

The instructors where I shoot recommend revolvers to newbies, but they agree with your recommendations regarding which semi-autos to carry concealed.

I see more young men and women than older people looking at J-frames.

If these statements are true of your particular area and reflect some amount of correlation, then there is a possibility that this may be a...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: a prophecy that is declared as truth when it is actually false, which may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

-Instructors in your area tell new shooters it would be best to start with a revolver (opinion of those who favor revolvers)
-You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)
-You relay to others the instructors' opinions and the result of those opinions as seen at the local gun shows (as though it was fact with supporting evidence)
-Over time it is generally accepted as "fact" that revolvers are best for new shooters (because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice)

I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.
So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto? Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical. I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.

tipoc
December 10, 2009, 04:24 PM
MM60,

At times the mind boggles...

From MM60;

I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

You are also unaware then that some guns can have a bushing more than finger tight and require a bushing wrench for take down. When a 1911 is tuned for accuracy the barrel to slide fit can be improved on. One aspect of this is to tighten the bushing to slide fit to the point that a bushing wrench is required for take down. Usually a gun for carry does not require this. Someone familair with 1911s knows this.

When you say "to rest my thumb", do you mean while you are actually shooting the gun? Or when you are pressing the lever? I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

Since it's inception many shooters, not all though, have shot the 1911 with a high thumbs hold. It's origins go back to the days when one handed shooting was taught in the military. Jeff Cooper taught it as mandatory. A person passingly familiar with the 1911 would know of this.

I have found that the removeable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removeable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

This simply defies the facts.

A fella who claims extensive expertize with firearms is unaware that alloy framed 1911s are made. Is unaware of the Colt Commander, Officer's Model, Detonics Combat Master, Kimber Ultra Carry, etc. Is unaware of the ParaOrd P14-45 or similar double stack offerings from other manufacturers in various calibers, is unaware of polymer framed 1911s. Makes the ridiculous statements above. Says with a straight face that he never heard of CZ or Kahr till 2 years ago when he joined THR but now knows all about them because he looked at pictures and read up on the internet. Becomes somewhat offended when folks question his opinions on things.

MM60 in all honesty you know next to nothing about 1911s. You have never given them more than a cursory examination. Worse, you believe you do know them. You know next to nothing about revolvers.

Nothing requires you to learn anything about them. Decades back the military and law enforcement (with a few exceptions) bypassed single action semis for da/sa or safe action guns. They left wheelguns behind. They did these things for precise reasons. There is nothing new in this discussion.

You have insulted anyone who choses to carry or use a 1911 or a wheelgun for self defense by saying that they lack common sense, are fanboys and old men (though some are women). You assume, incorrectly, that folks who do so believe that 1911s are best for all purposes and people. When called on this you switched to another topic.

You started two polls in which you made yourself the center of discussion and have challenged folks to get into a debate with you on the merits of Browning's design. (Using the search function you will soon learn that there have been many debates and discussions (a tedious number of them) on sa pistols vs. da/sa, dao, safe action etc. 1911 vs. Glock, vs. SIG, etc.)

If you wanted a debate on the 1911 why not bypass the poll and just do that. You have approached this dishonestly I feel.

tipoc

waterhouse
December 10, 2009, 04:37 PM
So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto? Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical. I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.

I've generally taught people how to shoot using a .22 single action revolver (in fact, it is probably the only gun I own that has more rounds fired by other people than by me). There is more to learning to shoot a gun than learning how the gun works. Things like grip, stance, sight alignment, trigger pull, etc. Things that make new shooters nervous (I've found) are noise, recoil, and reminding them to make sure they keep their hand and thumb away from the rear of the slide so that it won't cut them.

After they are comfortable, we can move onto guns where there is more recoil, more complications, etc. Is that so hard to understand? No one is implying that after learning the basics you just toss a beginner a semi auto and say "figure it out, have fun, try not to shoot yourself!"

I see nothing illogical with this progression. This is the second time you have called a somewhat common practice (carrying a 1911 and teaching new shooters the basics on simple guns*) illogical.

* I understand that revolvers are complex machines and did not mean to offend the revolver gurus by implying that their guns are simple, merely more simple to understand how to operate them.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 06:05 PM
"I see nothing illogical with this progression. This is the second time you have called a somewhat common practice (carrying a 1911 and teaching new shooters the basics on simple guns*) illogical."

Well, I was first trained on a full-sized semi-auto, then on a full-sized revolver, and then on an even larger semi-auto. I had no problem with discomfort or accuracy from the recoil of the 9mm, .357 Magnum, or .45 ACP rounds that we fired. I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future. If recoil is that much of a concern - then why not just train people using a semi-auto in .22? You could even teach them using a .22 conversion kit for your 1911.

Just because a practice is common - that doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2009, 06:17 PM
If these statements are true of your particular area and reflect some amount of correlation, then there is a possibility that this may be a...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: a prophecy that is declared as truth when it is actually false, which may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

-Instructors in your area tell new shooters it would be best to start with a revolver (opinion of those who favor revolvers)
-You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)
-You relay to others the instructors' opinions and the result of those opinions as seen at the local gun shows (as though it was fact with supporting evidence)
-Over time it is generally accepted as "fact" that revolvers are best for new shooters (because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice)

"Opinion of those who favor revolvers"(?)--Well, no--none of the instructors I know favor revolvers. One, who is a county police officer and former head of the SWAT team and former police sniper, uses semi-autos only--but he responsibly recommended that a relative not familiar with guns who had received a death threat choose a revolver.

"This may be a...Self-Fulfilling Prophecy...declared as truth when it is actually false"(?)--That a revolver is not as sensitive to variations in ammunition or to possible magazine damage or to lack of lubrication is not "actually false." That a DA revolver will not fail to eject upon inadvertent limp-wristing is not "actually false." That some practiced skill is required to immediately identify and remedy a failure to eject, a failure to feed, or a failure to go into battery in a semi-automatic pistol is not "actually false."

"You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)"(?)--I didn't ask their reasons.

"Because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice"(?)-- Do you have some evidence of bias? Any reason to suggest it?

So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto? Obviously, by shooting one, probably quite a bit, and practicing with it. Until they gain sufficient proficiency, however, they are essentially unarmed. It takes less time to become reasonably proficient with a revolver than with a semi-automatic. There are fewer operations and fewer things to go wrong.

One self defense book I read recently pointed out something that I had not considered. Many authorities, and a number of manufacturers, recommend not carrying a semi-automatic pistol until several hundred rounds have been fired, including, depending upon the source, some number up to several hundred rounds of the selected carry ammunition. That would have ruled out a .380 for defensive carry around here last summer, and the high cost of defensive ammunition could be a factor for many. My M&P Compact does not have a break-in recommendation, but many other models do. Nevertheless, I didn't trust it until I had fired several hundred rounds through it. I'd be happy to carry a revolver after firing fifty rounds through it--or if it were used, five rounds.

Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical.Actually, that was not my statement--just your strawman.

I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.Not sure where you got that idea. Before they carry anything they should learn to safely draw, fire, hit the target and reload; learn the basics of self defense; and learn the laws in their jurisdictions.

The revolver vs. semi-automatic debate is a very old one. In larger chamberings, the revolver is much more difficult to conceal in normal dress. The revolver has less ammunition capacity--the main driver in its having been replaced in uniformed police service. Without the new loading aids, it takes longer to reload a revolver.

On the other hand, a revolver is much simpler to learn to operate and is less sensitive to problems with ammunition.

I have a revolver. It's reliable and it fits into a pocket holster very nicely. I don't like the limited capacity, and the long double action pull requires somewhat more frequent practice than my M&P--which, in turn, requires somewhat more frequent practice than my 1911.

That has to do only with practicing the trigger pull, mind you--I have over forty years of experience in using locked-breech and blowback semi-automatics, and I'm quite comfortable with their operation.

The newbie can't say that -- at the beginning.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 06:18 PM
MM60 in all honesty you know next to nothing about 1911s. You have never given them more than a cursory examination. Worse, you believe you do know them. You know next to nothing about revolvers.

As I wrote previously, I owned a Springfield 1911-A1. It required a hex-key to disassemble the recoil spring guide in order to field strip the slide. It was large, heavy, SAO, and not the most reliable shooter. I have seen other people on THR also state that their 1911's required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters. I may not have extensively field tested every 1911 in existence, but I have owned one 1911 and handled many others.

I have owned two revolvers - both GP-100s, and I was trained on a S&W 686 by the Navy. I stated previously that larger-caliber revolvers (.357 and up) are suitable for certain purposes - usually where dangerous animals are involved, and I stated that most semi-autos are basically always better than smaller-caliber revolvers (.38 special and down) for situations involving human aggressors - especially those who may be armed. Anybody who automatically always recommends a small-frame revolver for women and new shooters is obviously biased in favor of revolvers for whatever reason. Revolvers are definitely not a better choice for women or new shooters unless the woman or new shooter is a total airhead and cannot possibly fathom the function of a sem-auto.

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 06:42 PM
I have seen other people on THR also state that their 1911's required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters.
I have seen people on THR state that their [insert ANY type of pistol here] required tweaking in order to be reliable shooters.

I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future.
Really? There are a number of great reasons to start new shooters out on .22s It's easier to teach trigger control and sight alignment on a .22. I wouldn't recommend carrying one, but that doesn't invalidate them as a training tool.

NMGonzo
December 10, 2009, 06:49 PM
Glock 35

I own one.

Works for me.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2009, 06:50 PM
Anybody who automatically always recommends a small-frame revolver for women and new shooters is obviously biased in favor of revolvers for whatever reason.

Biased? I don't think so. But he could be wrong.

A larger revolver is probably more suitable for home defense. Also, I've heard store clerks recommend the very light small revolvers in .357 Magnum--bad idea.

Revolvers are definitely not a better choice for women or new shooters unless the woman or new shooter is a total airhead and cannot possibly fathom the function of a sem-auto.That's a pretty strong statement, and not everyone agrees. It's one thing to be able to "fathom the function" of a mechanical device. It's quite another to be able to operate it properly every time under all conditions until one has gained proficiency--at which time one is no longer really a "new shooter."

Even then the revolver may be a better choice. The person may not shoot very often to maintain adequate familiarity with the gun. For a "gun person" that may not matter--like riding the proverbial bicycle--but for others it might. It's a matter of mechanical aptitude, and people vary. Also, not everyone can operate the slide of a semi-automatic pistol.

And for the new shooter or even for the old, if it's a new gun you're talking about, there's the question of how much ammunition you want to burn before you trust it.

By the way, I don't think that gender enters into the question.

waterhouse
December 10, 2009, 06:54 PM
I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future. If recoil is that much of a concern - then why not just train people using a semi-auto in .22? You could even teach them using a .22 conversion kit for your 1911.


You do know that people shoot for fun right? Not everyone who learns how to shoot a gun intends on carrying one for self defense. I thought that this was common sense, but you seem to think that they only reason to learn how to shoot any gun is to carry that gun in the future.

As for not using a semi auto, a single action revolver is painfully simple. You load it, cock it, pull the trigger.

A semi auto often has a slide release, magazine release, safety, magazine, etc. Explaining these parts takes time, and being concerned about the little levers and buttons can make people nervous when they should be concentrating on the front sight and trigger pull.

MM60
December 10, 2009, 10:31 PM
Ok guys, now - I'm telling you up front that this statement is just my own opinion, but when I hear you saying that you recommend training a new shooter on a single action .22lr revolver, the image that forms in my mind is a crotchety old man trying to teach his 10-year-old grandson how to shoot tin cans off of fence posts back behind his rotting old barn.

You guys are acting like every shooter has to start with little baby steps and work their way up - as though you're the masters of some sort of rites of passage where people have to prove themselves to you before they can be trusted or considered to have any value. My instructors started us out with regular full-sized firearms rather than making us feel like incompetent idiots by making us shoot little old fashioned .22lr revolvers, and we have all done just fine.

Also, I'm done responding to repetitious errors within this thread. If you don't want to read the entire thread - fine, but don't wonder about why I'm not reacting to your posts. (For example, in Kleanbore's post #156, "By the way, I don't think that gender enters into the question." <<<This constitutes a repetitious error.)

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 10:49 PM
You guys are acting like every shooter has to start with little baby steps and work their way up
You're the only one saying anybody always has to do anything. You don't HAVE to start with little .22s, I was just pointing out the reasons for doing so because you said
I see no reason to train somebody using a firearm that they will most likely not end up carrying in the future.
Nobody said it had to be a single action .22, that was just an example. And there are some advantages to starting small, especially people who are new to guns. Only puffed up "operators" take offense at shooting rimfire pistols. If you feel like an incompetent idiot because you're learning on a gun that can't kill a bear you have personal problems. Keep in mind also that the mindset of someone learning to shoot a handgun who has never been exposed to guns and is learning for the fun of it or for any other reason than for training in the military may not look at learning to shoot with the same eagerness. Some are scared, some are recoil shy. Why deal with recoil and blast when you're trying to teach someone how to work a trigger and line up sights?

MM60
December 10, 2009, 11:07 PM
Because by having the new shooter use a .22lr single-action revolver for initial training purposes is like a form of political correctness. It's as if you're worried that the slightest wrong move or word will offend the other person and so you're doing everything possible to keep that from happening. I'm sure that any liberal would agree with your desire to use a .22lr single-action revolver for a training gun rather than a "full-power" semi-auto. If you're going to teach somebody how to shoot - you should teach them the right way with a practical handgun right from the start.

Gryffydd
December 10, 2009, 11:11 PM
It's not about being worried about offending them, it's about teaching them one thing at a time. It's simply easier for most people to learn proper shooting without dealing with the recoil. You continue to be unable to grasp that there are people in this world that aren't you... How hard can it be to understand the benefits of training someone on what's easiest to shoot until they get the fundamentals down? "Incompetent idiots" who aren't cool special forces guys like you have to deal with flinching and other issues when they're learning to shoot. It's easier if you can eliminate that variable until they've gotten some practice.

McCall911
December 10, 2009, 11:15 PM
I thought the holiday season was supposed to bring out the best in people.
It's the second one today I've put on my ignore list for "issues."
Pity.

CombatArmsUSAF
December 10, 2009, 11:47 PM
This thread is still open? Just face it gentlemen, there are those among us that refuse to learn regardless of what efforts have been made.

MM60
December 11, 2009, 12:06 AM
That's fine with me. I'm going to start some new threads that hopefully won't turn into monsters like this one.

Gryffydd
December 11, 2009, 12:09 AM
I'm going to start some new threads that hopefully won't turn into monsters like this one.
It ended as it started ;) That's the problem with starting a thread with an agenda :D
Ok, just kidding on that one :)

MM60
December 11, 2009, 12:55 AM
I'll keep that in mind. Take care :cool:

If you enjoyed reading about "Pistol Choices II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!